My new hero: Dr. Gene Sharp

Gene Sharp is a retired college professor.  He is an introvert, thinker, and writer.  His field of study is the non-violent overthrow of dictators and establishment of democratic governments.

His seminal work is called 'From Dictatorship to Democracy'.  It is available as a PDF for free.

The New York Times has a nice article describing his life and writings, and explaining how his writings ended up in the hands of the protesters in Egypt.  (I can't link it here because they have hidden it behind their paywall.)

Dr. Sharp's writings are primarily focused on the first half of the struggle--toppling the dictator.  My interest is in the second half of the struggle--building a democracy.

If I ever achieve my life's goal, it will only be because I was able to stand on this man's shoulders.

Told you so

The Independent is reporting that Mubarak ordered in the tanks and the army refused; and that this confrontation was the moment that the army decided Mubarak would have to go:

"But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters."

This is what I wrote on Monday the 31st, before that story broke:

"If I were a gambling man then I would place my money on the military reporting that they received the order to massacre, refusing the order, arresting Mubarak, and then seizing control.  This gives the military control and a large measure of goodwill.  Notice that they don't have to actually get the order to massacre, they just have to say they got it.  There will be no way for Mubarak to prove otherwise once he is in jail."

At this point I haven't heard enough promises from the military for democratic elections.  I would not wager on how long it will be before that happens.

More on Egypt and the revolutions in the Middle East

Of course there are a ton of articles floating by about Egypt and the Middle East.  Here are the four biggest, in my opinion:

1. 20 reasons why the world is burning
This article is required reading to understand why this is happening now.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood is saying it will not run a candidate in democratic elections in Egypt
I can't decide if this is genuine good news, or if the Muslim Brotherhood is simply biding their time.  On it's face, though, this is fantastic news.  If democratic elections happen in Egypt, and if the Muslim Brotherhood keeps this promise, then the next government of Egypt will almost certainly be secular (read: not radical Islamic jihadist.)

3. Saudi King Saud pressured Obama to support Mubarak
I predicted this one.  It is vitally important to Saud for Mubarak to not fall.

The real story in Egypt

I found a fascinating article by a western-educated Egyptian.  Click, read, and cry for all that they have lost.

My heart is in Egypt

My heart is in Egypt right now.  If I were free to go, I would have been there a week ago.  But I am not free to go.  So I will write this article instead, and explain what I would do if I could go.  Because I am American, they would not listen to me anyway.

If I were in Egypt I would find the people who wrote this protesters' manual.  I would hide with them in whatever closet they are holed up in.  And I would talk their ears off about what's next.

Transition to what?

Mubarak is trying to hold on to power and save his own life.  He needs the military to protect him.  He is giving more power to the military in order to get their help.  When Mubarak leaves, the military will be in the best position to take over.  Military dictatorships have a poor history of turning power over to democratically-elected civilian governments.  In the short-term, the protesters need to pay more attention to who will be in power after Mubarak leaves.

It is unfortunate that they began the protests without a a new constitution to offer, or a clear non-military candidate or two.  Now they need to find a core group of protest leaders to form a provisional government that will work with the military to administer free and open elections as soon as possible.  They will need to elect two bodies:

• A constitutional congress that will have no powers except to write a new constitution.
• A transitional government that will manage the country while the new constitution is being written.

The transitional government will be tasked with making as few decisions as possible.  Just keep the trains running and power on.  They should draft business people for these positions--people who want to go back to their businesses as soon as possible.

There are two basic types of government:

• Governments based upon people: dictatorships, kingdoms, secret police states, mafia states, etc.
• Governments based upon laws: representative democracies, police states

The stories I'm hearing about the protesters lead me to believe that they want to form a government based upon laws.  This means that the constitutional congress will be where all the action is.  That is where I would like to be--offering advise and helping them form a good law-based government.

Democracy is not enough.

I would bring three books with me to Egypt:

• The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek
• The Other Path by Hernando De Soto
• The Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Soto

What is the point of government?  Peace, safety, freedom, economic opportunity, and justice.  These are outcomes that only democracy can provide.  But there are many forms of democracy that fail to deliver.  Kim Jung Il and Adolph Hitler were both democratically elected and re-elected, after all.

So, what does it take to build a good government?

I've identified 7 features of government and 4 features of society that are required in order to achieve peace, safety, and the rest.

Government Features

Equality Under the Law

1. Every person who is excluded from having a voice in the government will have no rational choice but to oppose the government.
2. A government that can exclude someone else will eventually exclude me.
3. A government that can grant special status to someone else will exclude me from that group, and will eventually exclude me entirely.
4. If anyone is above the law then they will eventually establish themselves as dictator.
5. Corruption cannot be allowed at any level in government, because corruption favors the rich--the poor cannot afford to pay the bribes.
6. The rich gain and the poor suffer as the body of law grows, because only the rich can afford the legal expertise to remain innocent.
1. A country where everyone is guilty of something will devolve into a prison.
7. The rich gain and the poor suffer as the process of complying with the law gets more complicated (licenses, permits, and the like), because only the rich can afford the legal expertise to operate businesses.
1. The poor will be limited to operating in the grey or black markets, where they lack legal protection.
8. Corporations and religious groups are organizations, not people.  Organizations must be treated fairly, with respect to each other.  But organizations must be governed under a distinct set of rules specific to them.

Popular Control

1. Only the people may change the constitution.
2. The people define the government's goals, priorities, and long-term vision.

Protection of Rights

1. The primary purpose of government should be to protect the rights of the people.
2. A people who fail to understand and properly value these basic rights will achieve the bad outcomes that they deserve:
1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of Property
3. Freedom of Religion
4. Freedom of the Press
5. Freedom of Assembly
6. Freedom of Vocation
7. Freedom of Contract
8. Freedom of Sexuality
3. Governments are not the only infringers on these rights.  Corporations and religious groups must be constrained to protect these rights

Limited Government

1. A government that can change the rules under which it operates will slide into corruption, allowing the rich to buy special privileges.
2. A government that can kill citizens will eventually kill me.
3. Governments are good at enforcing the rules by which everyone must operate--making and enforcing laws
4. Governments are very inefficient at delivering services.  
1. Some services can only be reasonably delivered by government, like military protection.  In these cases, the governments operations must be monitored closely for waste and corruption.
2. Some services could be provided by the free market, like mail delivery.  In these cases, the government contracting process must be monitored closely for corruption.
3. All of this monitoring is an expensive overhead.  The best way to reduce the overhead is to limit the scope of government.
5. Find creative ways to limit government spending.  Make them report everything they spend in clear terms.

Separation of Powers

1. Government is, by definition, a concentration of power.  Power corrupts.  Don't give any person any more power then you absolutely must, and don't let them hold on to that power any longer than you must.
2. There are certain categories of power within government.  These must be clearly and irrevocably separated:
1. Legislative: write laws
2. Police: enforce the laws
3. Judicial: apply and interpret the laws
4. Executive: manage the government itself
5. Ambassadors: official interactions with other nations
6. Military: defense and war
7. Measurement: measure and report the government's performance
8. Oversight: watch the watchers

Balance of Powers

1. The parts of government will have to interact with one another.  Each part needs to be reigned in by other parts.  Each line of power needs to be carefully laid out, to avoid any one part gaining too much power over the others, or to avoid having two or three parts forming a ruling coalition over the others.
1. Within those interactions there will be some natural power struggles.  These interactions must be planned out. For instance:
1. The police are completely subject to the judges when it comes to detaining and punishing wrongdoers.
2. The military is completely subject to the legislature to for funding.
2. Some un-natural power struggles need to be established, to keep any one part of government from gaining too much power.  For instance:
1. Military senior commanders must be approved by the judges before they can take office.
2. Executive branch officers are nominated by the legislature and confirmed or rejected by a jury made up of judges, police, and military personnel.

Regular Orderly Transition of Power

1. No one may serve in more than one part of the government at the same time.
2. No one gets to hold on to any power for an extended period of time.
3. No one gets to control how or when they will relinquish power.
4. When the people are unhappy, they must have a non-violent means for replacing the government and amending the constitution.

Social Features

Participation

1. Government must be watched, or it will devolve into corruption.
2. The people must tell the government what they want, or they won't get it.
3. Some people must serve in the government for a time, and then return to private life without gaining undue advantage in the marketplace from their time of service.

Criticism

1. The people must speak up when they have a problem with the government.
1. They cannot wait and let problems fester for too long before they do something.
2. They must continually exercise their right of criticism so they don't lose the right through lack of use.
2. Criticism must be public, so the public can weigh and judge the importance of the criticism.
1. Kooks will abuse the right to criticize, and use it as a platform for their craziness.  The public should be the judges of legitimate problems versus craziness.
2. The better your government gets, the more that legitimate problems will look and sound crazy at first.
3. The government must be strictly forbidden from silencing critics.
4. The government must have mechanisms for accepting criticism and making positive changes, when the people agree that the problem should be addressed.

Independence

1. The people must understand that the government cannot meet their every need.
2. The people must accept responsibility for the outcomes of their own lives, so long as they have been dealt with fairly.

Freedom-Loving

1. My freedom to swing my arm ends just before I hit my neighbor's nose.
2. People who are not dedicated to freedom will be too thin-skinned, constantly imagining that their noses have been hit.
3. Freedom will be constantly challenged by would-be authorities.  The people will have to continually defend freedom, primarily against religious authorities.
1. When a religion has the authority to enforce its will on non-believers then freedom of religion has been violated, and a religious kingdom has been established.  All non-believers are outsiders, and rationally must work to overthrow that government.

What's Next in Egypt?

Maybe the powers behind the scenes in Egypt already know all of this.  Even if they do know it, it will be incredibly difficult to pull off.  If the protesters are not simply massacred, then a military dictatorship is the most likely outcome of their present course.

If I were a gambling man then I would place my money on the military reporting that they received the order to massacre, refusing the order, arresting Mubarak, and then seizing control.  This gives the military control and a large measure of goodwill.  Notice that they don't have to actually get the order to massacre, they just have to say they got it.  There will be no way for Mubarak to prove otherwise once he is in jail.

Life in Egypt will go from bad to worse under a military dictatorship.

What's Next in the Region?

America has been a big supporter of Mubarak for a long time.  In response, Mubarak has been an ally of the US and Israel.  No matter what happens now, America and Israel are losing that ally.  This is a dark day for the US, and a terrifying turn of events for Israel.  Calling Obama "the President that lost Egypt" is somewhat unfair.  From the moment this broke out Obama has had no option for saving Mubarak.

American could have supported the rebels, but at the price of losing Saudi Arabia.  Doing that would not have likely won friends in the new Egypt, because America was the biggest military supplier of Mubarak's government.  And it would have been very difficult for America to denounce Mubarak, seeing as how they are giving him so much money every year.

It may not be Obama's fault, but the importance of this for Mid-East relations is still immense.  This weakens every state in the region.  The likely benefactor of that instability is Al Qaeda.  They will gain influence either by supporting existing countries or by supporting the overthrow of enemy countries.

Egypt has a fairly healthy current tradition of religious moderation.  Christians and Muslims have been living in peace there for a long time.  I pray that won't change.  But I'm afraid that religious freedom will be curtailed by the next government--no matter who runs it.

Saudi Arabia is already locked in its own civil war--the pragmatic king against his religious extremist cousins fighting through their proxies.  Saudi Arabia is the biggest domino in the region.  Egypt is the second biggest.  Iran is third, and already unstable.  Iraq was fourth, and still unstable.  Expect more wars and civil wars in the region.

Talks with Israel will be on hold until several of these major countries stabilize.  But when talks resume Israel will have no friends in the region.  There is really only one issue that the citizens of these regions can agree on, and that is hatred of Israel.  This period of instability would be a good time to get out of Israel.

The most encouraging news I have seen in a long time...

Moderate Egyptian Muslims are taking a stand against extremists in their country.  Last year at this time the extremists attacked several Christian churches.  Egyptian Christians celebrate Christmas in January, and it was last year's January Christmas celebrants that were attacked.

This year Muslims are attending the Christian ceremonies, mingling among the Christians, acting as human shields.  Their courage is worthy of praise.  Their devotion to peace is inspiring.  These acts of faith will not go unrewarded.

Visigoths inside the gates

The Conflict
America is at war with Al Qaeda.  Their primary target is the throne in Saudi Arabia--an American ally.  This war should be called the Saudi Arabian Civil War.  Bin Laden is a Saudi citizen.  His financial backers are Saudi citizens.  Al Qaeda cloaks itself in Islamic religious trappings.  The califate that Al Qaeda wishes to establish could only rule from Mecca, and must replace the Saudi King to do that.

I have my doubts about the genuineness of Al Qaeda's religious propaganda.  In an important sense it doesn't matter.  The Saudi throne is their goal.  If you believe the propaganda then they want the throne for it's religious importance.  If you disbelieve the propaganda then they want the throne for the money and power that comes with it.  But the religious propaganda is clearly important for many of Al Qaeda's key supporters (the extremist clerics.)  So Al Qaeda is constrained by their own propaganda.  They cannot act in ways that betrays that propaganda in the eyes of those extremist clerics.

The US was attacked for two important reasons.

First, the US was supporting the current ruler of Saudi Arabia.  Most Americans know little about King Saud.  Those who have studied the region generally agree that he is the least bad option.  Certainly it would be very bad for US interests, in many ways, if Al Qaeda won the Saudi throne.  So, even though most of Americans don't understand it, and many don't like it, it is strategically important for the US to support King Saud against Al Qaeda.

Second, the US is the great enemy in the religious propaganda--the "great Satan".  The US is a Christian and secular nation that was interfering in the Middle East--thwarting the extremist clerics from several of their goals (like the destruction of Israel.)

Al Qaeda held Afghanistan.  They wanted to get to Saudi Arabia.  American air and sea power was deployed in the Gulf to protect America's oil interests and allies.  So Al Qaeda was left with two options: sending their armies through neighboring countries, or building a new army closer to the target (like Yemen, Oman, or Jordan.)

When you look at a map, the path from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia is clear: Iran and Iraq.  Iran is a religious enemy of Saudia Arabia, and so could be an ally of Al Qaeda.  Iraq and Saudi Arabia were distrustful allies, but Iran was a common enemy that they could agree on.  So the battle line between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia would likely form on the border between Iran and Iraq, unless Iraq could be convinced to change teams.



In 2001, Al Qaeda had not committed to either option (moving through Iran and Iraq or rebuilding their army elsewhere.)  When they attacked the US mainland in 2001, Al Qaeda was rolling the dice on losing Afghanistan.  This was a risky gambit, but it had the potential to help with both options.  Iraq and the US were enemies (after Gulf War I), and so Al Qaeda and Iraq gained a common enemy.  And extremist clerics throughout the gulf region would flock to Al Qaeda for attacking the great Satan.

When Al Qaeda attacked Manhattan they were expecting all of the American forces in the Gulf region to converge on Afghanistan.  They were probably intending to leave a token resistance force there, to keep the American's engaged.  And they were probably going to drive the rest of their army through open gates in Iran and Iraq to invade Saudi Arabia.  That was Al Qaeda's best-case scenario--their shortest path to victory.

Someone in America (or Saudi Arabia) recognized that scenario and made the highly unlikely decision to invade Iraq before Afghanistan, thereby cutting off Al Qaeda's path to Saudi Arabia.

With that path closed, Al Qaeda's only remaining option is to re-build their army closer to the target.  The rise of Islamic extremists throughout the region seems to indicate that this option is still in play.  This option is not without risk, primarily because it is a slowly-developing strategy.  America is a very powerful enemy, and they will be difficult to evade for a long time.  But Al Qaeda has reason to believe that America will not have the will to pursue the war for long enough to win.

Al Qaeda's best strategy against America is to continue to increase the cost of the war until American decides that the price is too high.

There are four distinct "costs" that America is paying.  Al Qaeda couldn't have predicted how all of this would work out.  They didn't need to.  All that Al Qaeda needs to do is anything that they can think of that increases the price that America is paying.  If they can survive, America will eventually quit.  It is only a matter of time.

After America quits this war, Al Qaeda will soon win the Saudi Arabian throne.  After that there will be a short period of regrouping and rebuilding.  But Al Qaeda will soon return to attacking the US (the great Satan), using the financial resources of the Saudi throne.

America is not fighting a conventional enemy at this point.  America is fighting an existential threat, but they do not realize that the struggle is this serious.  America cannot quit the Saudi Arabian Civil War, or America itself will become the primary target of the new Al Qaeda owned Saudi Arabian extremist Islamic califate.

America cannot continue to pay the costs of this war forever.  And America cannot stop paying the costs of this war.  That is exactly the position that Al Qaeda hoped to put the US in.


The Costs
America is going to continue to pay these four costs until the end of this war.


Money
America is fighting a war far away from it's shores, buying and transporting massive amounts of equipment.  It is employing a large and expensive army.  It is paying huge bribes to marginal enemies to purchase their cooperation.  It is employing bleeding edge technologies.

America could make strategic decisions that would change the structure of the war and lower these costs.  The Obama administration recently approved the sale of a tremendous amount of high tech equipment to Saudi Arabia.  As long as the current Saudi King maintains control of this equipment then this will reduce America's costs in the war.

There are other similar tactics that could be employed.  But all of these tactics involve political pain and tactical risks.  Without significant tactical risk and political pain the financial costs of this war will continue to spiral out of control.


Lives
America's will to fight decreases with each American soldier's death.  America's military leaders understand this, and they are using high technology to minimize the deaths.  But the coffins keep coming.  And they will continue to keep coming.

Conversely, every US citizen that Al Qaeda kills increases America's will to fight.  This is why Al Qaeda is only executing incompetent attacks in the US now.  An incompetent attack on US soil forces the US to spend more on protecting the homeland, without increasing America's will to fight.  All attacks on US soil are now designed to do just that--increase costs without increasing resolve.


Loss of Prestige
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, America enjoyed a tremendous amount of international prestige.

Before 2001, America was the country that had saved the world from the Nazis and Communists.  America was the biggest engine powering global peace and prosperity.  Though far from perfect, America was the most benevolent sole superpower that anyone could imagine.

After 2001, America was the victim of an awful and unfair sneak attack.  No one imagined that Al Qaeda was as dangerous at the Axis of World War II, but Manhattan became a new generation's Pearl Harbor.  Everyone was ready to cheer America's selfless sacrifice as the US stood up to this new brand of violent despotism.

After the invasion of Iraq, America became fickle, fallible, and frightening.  Everyone could see that Iraq was invaded on false pretenses.  If America could openly invade a country and kill the rightful ruler there, for no good reason, then American exceptionalism was a lie.  The claim of Iraqi WMDs was a gamble designed to protect America's reputation.  When that gamble failed the American intelligence apparatus was exposed as a sham.  If American could be so wrong, and do something so terrible and wrong, then what would America do next?

That question continues to hang in the air, haunting every American move.  It has tremendously tarnished America's reputation.  Every day it becomes more and more difficult for America to rally it's allies.  Every innocent death, every abuse of power, every person held without trial, every tortured prisoner, and every unanswered question weakens America's ability to lead the international community.

Soon America will call for help and no one will answer.


Loss of Identity
There is a strong line of reasoning that fire should be fought with fire.  In some circumstances a firebreak is the only way to stop the advance of a raging wildfire.  Burn the ground in front of a wildfire in a controlled manner, denying the fire it's fuel.  Sometimes a raging fire can only be extinguished with a larger explosion that will use up all of the oxygen.

Al Qaeda has used terrorist tactics against the US homeland.  Terrorists tactics have both short-term and long-term effects.  By calling it "terrorism" we have highlighted the short-term effects and ignored the long-term effects.  The short-term effects are fear and disruption--terror.  The long-term effects are much worse.  The government that was attacked has to change itself into a police state (or secret police state) in order to protect against further attacks.

Islamic extremists believe in very limited freedom for individuals.  They want religious authorities to control the government, and they want the government to control the details of people's lives.  Their goal for this control is to force people to obey their religious laws.  They view freedom primarily as freedom to sin, and so they are against individual freedom in principle.

This is part of why Islamic extremists use terrorist tactics.  The governments that they attack have to respond by imposing limits on individual freedoms, and they have to exercise more control over their citizens in order to protect those citizens.  Only part of Al Qaeda genuinely believes that this is a religious struggle.  But those people greatly enjoy seeing US citizens subjected to body scanners, travel restrictions, terrorist watch lists,  invasions of privacy, continual surveillance, and all of the other abuses that a terror-attacked government is bound to perform.

In their view, Americans are simply building the tools that the extremist clerics will eventually use to enforce their religious laws.  Americans are becoming compliant sheep that accept the sorts of invasions of privacy that the extremist clerics wish to perform.

We have encountered the enemy, and it is us.

As an American citizen, this is the cost that I find the most unbearable.

Every terrorist attack brings increases in government control over innocent citizens.  The US government is terrorizing it's own citizens because Al Qada forced it to.  The terrorists are winning.  America is no longer the free country that it used to be.  And it will continue to get less free as long as the terrorist attacks continue.

This isn't an issue of political party.  Both parties are completely committed to increasing the government's power in response to each terrorist threat.

If you believe that governments are capable of propping up external threats in order to maintain their own power then this is your nightmare scenario.  Any invasion of privacy can be justified.  Anyone can be a terrorist threat.  Any means that the government can use to neutralize a threat is allowed.  Citizens are detained or killed without trials.  Constitutional protections are suspended.  Freedom will never return.

The Conclusion
There are several ways in which this war could end, if you are willing to believe that the US government wants the war to end.

The califate crowd could all die.
In the American Civil War, the South could have given up on the idea of keeping their slaves.  Or the North could have given up on the idea of abolishing slavery.  If either side had backed off that issue then the war would have ended.

Not every member of Al Qaeda believes in the religious vision of an extremist Islamic califrate (kingdom) headquartered in Mecca.  If that religious goal dies out then the war can wind down.  This is the Saudi Arabian Civil War, and the hope of that califrate is the issue that is driving this war.  If King Saud agrees to let Al Qaeda form their califrate then he will be killed, along with his family and everyone he loves.  He won't do that.

But Saudi Arabia and america could, theoretically, change their strategy and focus on nothing but identifying and killing the true believers among Al Qaeda.  If they could do it then they could negotiate a peace with whoever remained.

America could reduce the costs to continue the war.

This war is a marathon.  America has to bear the costs for as long as they can.  Al Qaeda has to survive.

Al Qaeda will die of natural causes, if America can keep running long enough.  There are two ways that America could reduce it's costs in this war--and thus extend the amount of time that it can run the marathon.

Focus on cost reduction.

This isn't so much a strategy as it is a collection of tactics.  Don't deploy enough troops to win, just deploy enough troops to avoid losing.  Stop buying exotic and expensive weapons.  Make fewer attacks--and those attacks that you do make must be calculated to inflict an absolute minimum of collateral damage.  Dig in and slow down the pace of the war.

This is anathema to the American psyche.  I hate it.  Every American will hate it.  I'm not sure if America has the stomach to pull it off.

On the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq this should look like a stalemate.  That is exactly what this strategy is looking for.  On the front lines, where American forces are interacting with Afghani and Iraqi citizens, America has to lighten their touch.  Make friends by being a good neighbor.  Apologize for the collateral damage that has been caused.  Just become another part of the scenery.

At home, go back to normal.  Shut down the invasive airport screenings.  Take everyone you can off the terrorist watch list.  Don't issue a terror alert unless you absolutely have to.  Scale Homeland Security back down tremendously.  Quit talking about the "war on terror" and begin talking about protecting our friends in the Middle East.

The Achilles' heel of this strategy is that there will be more terrorist attacks against the US homeland.  Citizens will be killed and injured.  People will scream for more protection.  Politicians have to understand that it is in the citizens' best interest to not give them substantially more protection--because more protection is a cost that America cannot bear for long enough.  The terrorist attacks will only stop after they prove to be ineffective in escalating America's costs.

Change the entire war.

This is what I thought Obama said he was going to do.  Maybe this is what Obama genuinely intended to do.  Or maybe I misunderstood him.  Maybe I was overcome by my own hope for change.

This strategy requires a 180-degree turn from everything that America has done since the invasion of Iraq.  Dust off America's white hat and put it back on.  Become the "good guys" again, and accept all of the limitations that this will bring.

Close Guantanamo.  Give those prisoners public trials (even as enemy combatants, where the burden of proof is much much lower.)  End the policy of torturing prisoners.  Publicly apologize for every single transgression--every person who was tortured, every innocent casualty, every invasion into other nations.

Stop paying bribes.  Stop assassinating people.  Stop interfering with the internal workings of sovereign nations.  No more invasions.  Leave Afghanistan, even if that means losing that battle.  Scale back our Iraqi forces to a desert base far from civilization, that only acts as a deterrent to Iran.

At home, go back to normal.  Shut down the invasive airport screenings.  Take everyone you can off the terrorist watch list.  Don't issue a terror alert unless you absolutely have to.  Abolish the Department of Homeland Security.

Quit talking about the "war on terror" and begin talking about the Saudi Arabian Civil War.  Talk about the evils of extremism, and the peaceful potential of Islam.  Every time America is attacked it should respond with an intense public propaganda campaign against extremism.  Publish the names of clerics.  Publish the names of their supporters.  Isolate them in their religious communities.

The extremist Islamic world-view is in direct conflict with the world-view of every other Muslim in the world.  This conflict is something that both groups refuse to publicly acknowledge.  Rub their noses in it.  Force the extremists to declare that their war is against every Muslim that disagrees with them--because it is.  Every jihadist knows it.  Every jihadists' mother knows it.  Send the jihadists home to kill their mothers, and the movement will dissolve.

Saudi Arabia could learn to defend itself.
A large portion of Al Qaeda's strategy hinged on the fact that Saudi Arabia had almost no army to protect itself.  It was utterly dependent on America for it's physical protection.  If America used it's Saudi Arabian protection forces to attack Afghanistan then Al Qaeda could have overthrown King Saud with a very small force.

If Saudi Arabia builds a substantial army then America could withdraw from Iraq and Saudi Arabia, leaving Saudi Arabia to fight it's civil war on it's own.  Iran would invade Iraq.  Al Qaeda might attack Saudi Arabia in force.  Iran might attack Saudi Arabia in force.  If Saudi Arabia can defend itself, then America's direct involvement could end.

America would continue to be the great Satan.  But the Islamic extremists would be temporarily satiated with their apparent victory over the great Satan--they had forced America to flee their region.  The extremists would be busy fighting Saudi Arabia itself.

The Obama administration recently approved the sale of a tremendous amount of military armaments to Saudi Arabia.  The conventional wisdom is that these arms are the start of this strategy shift.  Weapons are important.  And America's cutting edge high-tech weapons will provide a significant advantage over the more primitive weapons of Al Qaeda and the Iranians.  But weapons do not make an army.  An army is created through a tradition of excellence in training, tactics, and command.  This will take at least a generation (20 years.)


America could deny victory to Al Qaeda.
This is an ugly non-solution that I am vehemently opposed to.  But if

* America does not dramatically change the nature of this war

* Al Qaeda's leadership outlives America's will to defend Saudi Arabia

* and Saudi Arabia cannot defend itself

then this is America's last chance to survive.

America should announce this plan well in advance.  Quit Afghanistan and Iraq.  Leave Saudi Arabia to it's own defense.  And then issue this threat: "America will nuke Mecca the moment that Al Qaeda takes control of Saudi Arabia or Mecca."

Encourage everyone who is not a member of Al Qaeda to evacuate the city if Al Qaeda begins to move in.

Al Qaeda will either move in and get nuked, or it will die of frustration.

The backlash against the threat would be substantial.  The backlash against actually nuking Mecca would be nearly unbearable.  The president that gives the order will be killed.  America's empire would be over.  But America would survive--and America would not survive long if Al Qaeda established their califrate in Mecca.

The nuclear solution

(This post is entirely serious.  It might seem like sarcasm or irony, but it is not.  This is a serious proposal.)

I have a solution for the nuclear arms race problem.  It would require a more competent UN than we currently have, but I think that it is within reach.

The US should propose the following treaty at the UN (obviously it has to be fleshed out with more legalese and technical details.)

"Nuclear weapons pose a grave existential threat to humanity.  Any attempt to ban nuclear weapons is likely to start a new arms race using other weapons of mass destruction.  Therefore, we, the undersigned nations, commit to entirely eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and enforce verification methods to ensure that no more are produced.
 
* We will safely disable and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in our arsenal within one decade of this treaty being passed by the UN.
* We will closely safeguard all nuclear, biological, chemical, and other WMD components for as long as necessary until they can be safely destroyed.
* We will submit to any and all inspections by the UN's WMD inspection team, with the understanding that all inspection protocols apply to all nations equally.
* We will turn over to the UN WMD inspection team all credible information that we obtain about anyone attempting to build WMDs, including both citizens and non-citizens, both inside and outside of our borders.
* We will partner with all other nations to punish any nation that breaches this treaty.
- A nation that refuses to sign this treaty will be attacked and destroyed.
- A nation that refuses to submit to inspections will not be allowed to trade with any other nation.
- A nation that builds WMDs will be attacked in a targeted manner, to destroy the WMDs, the parties that created the WMDs (either private or public), and the government that allowed the WMDs to be created.
- A nation that uses WMDs will be utterly destroyed.
- A nation that lets a private party within their borders breach this treaty is guilty of breaching the treaty--a nation is responsible for the actions of the people within its borders.
- A nation that supports another nation in breaching this treaty will be equally guilty, and subject to all of the same punishments.
- A nation that plants false information about WMD production in another nation; or that supports WMD production within the borders of another nation, in order to get that nation in trouble; will be utterly destroyed."

I believe that this treaty would be effective if even a small number of nations ratified it.  The threat of conventional war, absent any other war-type provocations, would force other nations to ratify it and participate.  The date would slide for a while, as more nations ratified it and asked for more time to destroy their stockpiles.

If I were president, I would do this.

It is all part of the plan

Obama inherited a pair of wars that he didn't like.  He pledged to get out of Iraq, and then had to backtrack on that promise once he was in office and really came to understand the situation.  As Bruce Bueno de Mesquita explained in The Predictioneer's Game, if American forces leave Iraq then Iraq will quickly become a puppet of Iran.

Letting Iraq become an Iranian puppet would be disastrous--Iraq would start making plans to do the same thing to Saudi Arabia in order to get control of the oil money.  If you dislike Obama then you probably think that he is afraid of taking the blame for that failure.  If you like Obama then you probably think that he recognizes the danger and accepted the lesser of the two evils--leaving the troops in Iraq.  I suspect that both sentiments are mostly true.

Obama is embarrassed and frustrated that he cannot get the troops out of Iraq.  He probably doesn't allow himself the comfort that he didn't really understand the situation when he made the promise during the campaign. He probably regrets the promise, but recognizes that he had to make it in order to get elected.  But I'm sure that he is still looking for a way to finally fulfill that promise.

So he is selling a massive amount of arms to Saudi Arabia in hopes that a real fighting force in Saudi Arabia will be enough to counter-balance Iran and keep Iraq independent after the US forces leave.

It's certainly not a bad idea.  It could work, though I am skeptical.  But he gets points for creativity.

The Saudis must be looking beyond the withdrawal of US forces and preparing for confrontation with Iran + Iraq.  Saudi Arabia has recently been much more interested in paying others to fight their battles for them.  After all, our ongoing war on terror is really just the externalization of the Saudi Arabian civil war.

The clock is ticking

Iran will reportedly install the nuclear rods in their new power plant on Saturday the 21st.  John Bolton says that Israel has to strike before that nuclear fuel is loaded.  I don't really know John Bolton, but the little bit I have seen from him has been specific and clear--unlike anyone else in or around Washington.  That's probably why he didn't last long as our envoy to the UN.

This is do-or-die time for Israel.  Once Iran has this in place it will be impossible to stop them from building bombs capable of wiping Israel off the map.  Israel is reduced to mutually-assured-destruction brinkmanship with Iran--a tactic that doesn't work well against extremists.  For all the noise that Iran makes about the fate of the Palestinians, they are about to kill more of them than Israel ever could.

Israel has three choices at this point:
1. Strike Iran before the end of the week.
2. Before the end of this year, announce that you have nuclear weapons in place that can reach Iran--hoping that mutually-assured-destruction will provide sufficient deterrence.
3. Do nothing, and perish soon.

The rumor mill says that the US "lost" some nuclear material and gave it to Israel years ago.  It would be a breach of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty for the US to give away the material.  This is why no one will officially admit what everyone is sure occurred.

All three options are unappetizing.  But this is an existential threat to Israel.  The only question that matters is which option gives Israel the best chance for survival.  None of these three options guarantee survival.  That level of desperation will certainly affect their reasoning and push them to take action (strike or actively deter) instead of trusting the actions of others.

The Strike Option

To call this one option is a gross over-simplification.  There are any number of types of strikes that they could undertake.  They could use their nuclear weapons on the Iranian nuclear plant.  Or they could strike the plant with conventional weapons.  (Saudi Arabia has already officially granted Israel permission to fly their planes through Saudi airspace for such an attack.)

If I were planning the strike mission my number one goal would be to get the nuclear material out of play.  My second goal would be killing the Iranian scientists and engineers that make their nuclear program possible.  My third goal would be destroying the facility itself.

The clearest way to get the nuclear material out of play would be to insert a strike force of Israeli soldiers and capture it in transit.  That might mean attacking Russian troops directly and in the open.  There is a high chance of failure, and the failure opens the door wide for an Iranian counter-attack.

The cleanest way to accomplish all three goals is to sabotage the facility so that it blows up soon after the Iranians load the fuel.  They will always be blamed for this in the press, but they might could pull it off and not leave any traces that officially implicate them.  They never admit it, and the current status quo remains.  This is definitely the best option, if they have invested in the level of infiltration necessary to pull this off.

If they don't have the infiltration in place, or if the infiltration fails, then a direct conventional strike against the facility is their best military option.  The strike should occur after the fuel arrives and before it is loaded in the reactor.  That timing is critical because they want to keep the nuclear material in its travel protective cases.  Those cases are pretty tough.  They will crack and leak, leaving a radioactive mess.  But they will not allow the radioactive material to spread across the desert and reach nearby cities.

The political fall-out from a military strike will be severe.  This might trigger another conventional war with Israel's neighbors.  It will certainly increase the pace of terrorist attacks against Israel.  But that war will be limited in scope since Saudi Arabia is essentially on Israel's side this time.

Israel should survive.  If Israel plays it right, I would give them a 70%-80% chance of surviving another decade after making a strategic strike.

The Deterrence Option

If the US had a pro-Israel president then we could better help them manage the fall-out of that announcement.  I suspect that they fear the current administration will demand the return of that nuclear material, and withdraw all official support for Israel.  This option will burn bridges and isolate Israel for years to come.  That's not a deal-breaker for the Israelis, but it makes that strategy much more expensive.

If they choose this option then they don't have to act this week.  It will take months, at least, for Iran to weaponize this nuclear material.  Politically, they would be better off waiting for a nuclear weapon announcement from Iran before they make their own announcement.  The problem with waiting is that Iran might strike before making any announcement.  The deterrent won't work if it isn't acknowledged.

For these reasons, if they choose this option, I would expect Israel to immediately begin talking about how Iran has "introduced nuclear politics into the region".  Then they will make their announcement of their nuclear weapons in a few months--before Iran could have their weapon ready.  That announcement will probably be a last-minute event.

Iran's leadership has shown precious little restraint.  Their current line of thinking seems to be "what can we get away with?"  This leads me to believe that they are capable of hatching and executing a quick-strike plan, perhaps smuggling small nuclear weapons into Palestine.

The quick-strike nuclear attack would always hang over their heads.  That's a tough way to live.  It will cause Israeli politics to slide to the extremes.  That's not a good development for anyone.

Israel could survive.  But I would place their decade survival odds at less than 50%.

The Do-Nothing Option
This really isn't an option.  If Israel does nothing then Iran will weaponize their nuclear fuel and use those weapons to wipe out Israel.  They will shed few tears for the suffering they cause the Palestinians.

If Israel's leadership fails to act then there will be a voluntary exodus as intelligent people move away from the target cone.