The arrest, part of Operation Suez, is one a specific evidence of fighters in Iraq returning to Europe, perhaps to start sleeper sells or find more recruits for the War in Iraq. Regardless of the exact reasons, there is now more concrete evidence of the Mujahideen network in Europe and Iraq linking up:

The ring that Operation Suez discovered illustrates the extent to which al-Qaeda satellite support rings have established themselves in Europe. This cell went undetected for two years despite Bousbaa’s previous arrest. The arrests lend more credence to pronouncements by Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon, who has led high-level inquiries into al-Qaeda in Spain, and by Pierre de Bousquet, the head of France’s domestic security service, several months ago that implied that foreign fighters in Iraq are already returning to Europe to re-establish or establish new networks to support terrorist operations in Europe.

Ultimately, Operation Suez demonstrates with hard evidence one of the consequences if Iraq slides to a failed (rather than failing) state. How long before another Madrid or London type bombing occurs brought on by groups with “Iraqi field training”?

Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post does an excellent job in “What ‘Energy Security’ Really Means” on broadening the general public’s view of energy security. Read on.

What everyone thinks about energy security:

“For many American leaders, energy security means producing energy at home and relying less on foreigners. But the United States imports three-fifths of its oil, and the share is heading up. For the foreseeable future, alternative fuel is unlikely to change that.”

The alternative view:

“Energy interdependence can actually be good for energy security: Just look at natural gas markets. Right now nearly all the natural gas that Americans consume comes from U.S. and Canadian fields; only 3 percent comes into the country by tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas. This renders the United States highly vulnerable to disruptions on its home continent. If terrorists or a hurricane took out a key pipeline, it would be hard to bring in alternative supplies from outside North America, and prices would spike upward. By buying more liquefied natural gas from a diverse range of foreigners, the United States would reduce its energy independence but enhance its energy security.”

Also see Daniel Yergin’s Foreign Affairs article, “Ensuring Energy Security“.

Results of the experiment demonstrated dramatic cultural differences in financial value estimations, as well as on the influence of variables such as framing effects. Chinese participants made higher object value estimates than Americans did, even when adjusting for differing national inflation rates. In addition, the results showed that contextual information, such as framing, morality information, and group membership affected judgments of financial values in complex ways, particularly for Chinese participants. The results underscore the importance of understanding the influence of cultural background on economic decision-making. The authors discuss the results in the context of behavioral law and economics, and propose that importing cultural competence into behavioral models can lead to cognitive debiasing, both temporary and permanent.

Realism, Decision Making and Culture
One of the fundamental flaws of the school of realism is the belief that all actors are self-interested rational actors. We can assume that all actors are rational, yet we need to recognize that different value systems (as influenced by one’s culture and enviorment) can bring about very logical, but very different decisions.

From my own personal college experience in International Relations courses, I never once remembered a serious considering on how cultural values shaped decision-making, policy objectives and grand strategy objectives. Yet despite all this, we know there’s a difference. There are business consultants who consult on the different business styles of Americans, Indonesians, the French, Russians and others.

While I am sure those inside the walls of the State Dept., DoD and other policy-making and shaping groups know this, there should be a more frank open discussion by the mainstream media, which too are policy-shappers in the area of public opinion.

Menzie Chinn, while discussing the new appointed Sec. Treasurer Henry Paulson, puts out to a laundry lists of major and mounumental challenges the U.S. economy is facing. His full article, “Does a new economic team mean a new economic policy?“, is worth the read.

the economy has both underperformed along a number of dimensions, and faces serious challenges in the future.

Regarding the past and present:

• Real compensation has been stagnant.
• Job creation has been lackluster.
• Income inequality has been increasing.
• Federal debt has been exploding and is set to explode further, as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended.
• Federal government entitlements-based liabiities have been expanded tremendously by the Bush Administration and Congress(Medicare Part D) even as the Bush Administration attempted to modify Social Security.
• Tradable sector output share has been declining.

Regarding future challenges:

• The trade and current account deficits are increasing without seeming end.
• The determination of interest rates on government debt in the US are ever more in the hands of foreign governments and other actors.
• The net income account in the balance of payments is set to go into the negative range.
• High energy dependence exacerbates the problems reserve accumulation in oil exporting countries.
• The possibility of a “hard landing” for the dollar.

Sobering Look at Brazil’s Energy Independence as a Model for the US

“Lessons from Brazil“, TheOilDrum’s Robert Rapier:

Yes, Brazil has in fact “figured it out” with respect to energy independence. But the reason they achieved energy independence is primarily because of their frugal energy usage, not because of ethanol. Increase their energy usage to U.S. levels, and the “energy independence miracle” would quickly vanish. This is the factor that the media and the politicians have overlooked. On the other hand, if the U.S. had the same per capita energy consumption as Brazil, we would be net oil exporters. In fact, our per capita energy consumption could be 11 barrels per person per year – triple the consumption of Brazil – and our production and demand would be in balance. We would be energy independent.

“The release of the data-mining story to USA Today obviously was intended as a means of shooting down his nomination — which it might. But what is important here is not the fate of Hayden, but the fact that the Bush administration clearly has lost all control of the intelligence community — extended to include congressional oversight processes. That is not a trivial point.
…
Leaks of information about secret projects to a newspaper is a symptom of the disease: a complete collapse of any consensus as to what this war is, what it means, what it risks, what it will cost and what price Americans are not willing to pay for it. A covert war cannot be won without disciplined covert operations. That is no longer possible in this environment. A serious consensus on the rules is now a national security requirement.” (Emphasis Mine)

Last week on Thomas Barnett’s blog:

“Putin’s backtalking, along with Ahmadinejad’s and all the rest around the world, just signals the growing awareness internationally that the Bush Administration is a spent force. This crew is not inclined to change their spots now, and the world knows it.

So, quite frankly, our debates should focus most on who and what comes next for America. The conversation is basically over with the Bush Administration. So it’s time to focus on the new ideas, the new leaders, and the lifers within the bureaucracy who will both rule–for all practical purposes–in the meantime and be there when the new crew arrives.”(Emphasis Mine)

Comment
At a moment the US is facing many critical issues domestically (immigration to domestic intelligence) to challenging foreign policy issues (Iran, Iraq, to Latin America) and overarching issues regarding energy and the environment, the United States is quickly finding itself in a rut with a sitting-duck presidency. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has lost control of any stern party leadership, control over its own agencies and department and directions on policies.

While the “sitting-duck presidency” is a sickness befalling just about every president on his/her last term, its only May, 2006. What happens six-months from now?

Bottom Line:
Will the security environment deteriorate vis-à-vis the US? What power plays will foreign adversaries, competitors and even some allies pursue against the US while we are in this state of flux?

In the coming months, we should expect to see interesting maneuverings from China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran – among others.

The Observer reports leaks regarding the July 7 London subway bombing inquiry by the British Government:

The official inquiry into the 7 July London bombings will say the attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the internet, that there was no ‘fifth-bomber’ and no direct support from al-Qaeda, although two of the bombers had visited Pakistan.

While this is not surprising news in itself (if indeed, these leaks are accurate), this confirms the difficulty and the nature of the threat in this (for a lack of a better name) the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The enemy we face is larger, bigger than Al-Qaida or Bin Laden – it is a worldview, an idea – something that cannot be easily stopped.

According to the report, the attacks were largely motivated by concerns over foreign policy and the perception that it was deliberately anti-Muslim, although the four men were also driven by the promise of immortality.

As mentioned in earlier post, “Global Swarm: Explaining GWOT through Thomas Barnett, Huntington, Global Guerillas “, the threat we face is a cocktail mix of religion and issues of social justice (mix of real/exaggerated/false etc) with an overall feeling of the persecution of Muslims (The Ummah) around the world. Defeating such a “movement” will indeed be a Long War.

This week John Reid, the British Defence Sec, called for a revamp of the Geneva Convention due to the changing nature of modern (post-modern?) warfare at the Royal United Services Institute.

“We risk trying to fight 21st-century conflict with 20th-century rules which, when they were devised, did not contemplate the type of enemy which is now extant,” he said. “The laws of the 20th century placed constraints on us all which enhanced peace and protected liberty. We must ask ourselves whether, as the new century begins, they will do the same.” (2)

Reid makes the argument that Geneva Conventions was not designed for a time where “non-state actors [are] capable of operating on a global scale, crossing international borders” and where “accelerating scientific and technological progress which has facilitated the proliferation of, and easier access to, the means of wholesale human destruction – particularly in the form of chemical, biological or radiological weaponry.”

Put simply, in today’s changed circumstances are we convinced that it adequately covers:
• the contemporary threat from international terrorists?
• The circumstances in which states may need to take action in order to avert imminent attack?
• Those situations where the international community needs to intervene on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity in order to stop internal suppression – mass murder and genocide – as opposed to external aggression? (3)

Conclusion
“Laws such as the Geneva Convention had been drawn up at a time when the main threat of war was between states but the 21st-century world was under threat from terrorist groups unconstrained by any sense of morality or adherence to any conventions. “We now have to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents,” he said. “The legal constraints upon us have to be set against an enemy that adheres to no constraints whatsoever.”

The phrase “unconstrained by any sense of morality” is somewhat inaccurate. The type of warfare (fourth-generation) we are seeing today is not driven by any sense of immorality. It is the gulf (asymmetry) between Western-style militaries (and their societies) against enemies that have radically differing ethics, moral code, organization, structure and motivations. Not superior or inferior, but rather on an entirely on a different plane.

Indeed, the beginnings of the Geneva Conventions go back as far as the 1864 – a very different world from today. Yet, for better or worse, these conventions are a part of the West’s sacred documents that cannot be thrown into the dustbin of history – least the West loses its own identity and values.

Change must happen and John Reid is right in pointing this out, but it must be examined critically least the West loses its identify in the fight against its enemies.

Links and Sources
1) Reid calls for Geneva Convention to be rewritten
2) Reid urges review of Geneva Convention on prisoner treatment
3) Full transcript RUSI – Event – Lecture: Secretary of State for Defence

The StrategyUnit has recently posted several articles relating to India, with the strongest being “Getting India Right : Recreating the Anglosphere“, where it is declared:

“There has been discussion that just as Great Britain gracefully passed its world power status to the United States, the United States must look to do the same with India or else face decline in the face of a raising China.”

Now the Economist (Feb 25), ahead of Bush’s March visit to India, leads with two articles highlighting the Bush Administration’s approach with India. The second article, “The Great India Hope Trick“, goes through the three major topics: 1) the difficulty surrounding the Bush Administration’s nuclear technology deal with India; and 2) the American temptation to see India as part of an anti-China axis partner; 3) while India needs and wants to be seen as an equal in any partnership with the US.

The article also touches moves by the US to offer technology to assist with India’s energy security needs, while it faces the difficulty dealing with India’s relationship with Iran, Syria and China on energy projects.

As mentioned earlier on StrategyUnit, India’s geostrategic location near the Middle East, Asia and Central Asia make it an essential ally and a practical ally with its shared Anglo history, language and democractic institutions. While somewhat differing from StrategyUnit, the Economist ends the article highlighting the attractiveness of India highlighting its “Stabiliy, Democracy, and Demography”:

Nevertheless, in the long term, India has two great attractions. One is stability. India has proven mechanisms for the peaceful transfer of power and the ability to withstand terrible internal conflicts—in Kashmir and the north-east, for example—without danger to its integrity. China’s eventual transition to democracy could be traumatic. Another attraction is demography. China’s one-child policy ensures that it will grow old before it gets rich: a generation of only children may suddenly find themselves struggling to support the parents who once pampered them. India will remain younger and more dynamic well into the middle of the 21st century.

For many reasons, a close partnership between India and America seems both desirable and inevitable. The fraught negotiation over the nuclear issue, however, has revealed how difficult it will be to achieve. To America, and to many Indians, it must seem inconceivable that India—still so poor, and so desperately in need of just the sort of help America is offering—should not jump at the chance of a special relationship. How on earth, for example, could the idea of siding with Iran instead be seriously debated? But for many in India, “non-alignment” is a synonym for independence, and should not be sacrificed, however enticing the prize. Moreover, so confident is India’s mood at the moment, that many seriously believe America needs it more than the other way round. Tomorrow belongs to Asia.

Other articles by StrategyUnit for 2006 on India:
1. “Needed in Asia: Security and Energy Cooperation”
2. “Year of Chinese-Indian Friendship…on Oil?“

From Port Call:

Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn’t already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight–even with political allies.
…
Cancellation of the contract would be viewed as an insult to the UAE and its leadership; regional critics would accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy–anxious to utilize UAE bases and sell its defense hardware to the Dubai, but unwilling to let a UAE company manage operations in U.S. ports. Such criticism, in turn, would cause other Gulf allies to question Washington’s long-term committment to the region, and make it more difficult for the U.S. to sustain basing rights in such countries as Qatar and Bahrain.

In the domestic area, the Bush Administration is in a tightspot as it defends the deal, while the Democrats are taking advantage of the UAE deal to look strong in homeland security. However, as Spook86 mentions, the deal has wide geopolitical implications. There’s a lot at stake for the US, the Middle East and the War on Terror (GWOT). Congress has a right to be concerned, but these concerns must be placed in greater political and international context.

For more on US Military Bases in UAE check out GlobalSecurity.org

The U.S. and its “War on Drugs” is partially the cause of the escalation of the drug war. The US and other states have escalated the war, only to encourage the development and spread of fourth generation gangs, increasing the corruption of governments – and the growing nexus of gangs and corrupt officials leading to a narco-state.
…
If Mexico slides towards Colombization, two threats will gather strength: 1) the number and strength of potential gangs that could work with groups Al-Qaida will increase; and 2) the spill over of violence and nacro-trafficking from Mexico to the southwestern U.S. states.

While Mexico isn’t Colombia yet, these major threats are more than sufficient enough for the U.S. to strongly reconsider its approach to the War on Drugs and its own domestic drug policies.

The US-Mexican Borderlands
Source: http://www.epa.gov

Follow-Up Since November 2005 Posting: Yes, things are pretty bad

Fast forward to February 2006, the headlines on what’s going on in the US-Mexican border are not encouraging:

Guns and money: U.S.-Mexico border besieged by crime, terror:

Following separate raids on Jan. 12, 26 and 27, U.S. authorities announced they had seized two homemade bombs, materials for making 33 more, military-style grenades, 26 grenade triggers, large quantities of AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, silencers, machine gun assembly kits, 300 primers, bulletproof vests, police scanners, sniper scopes, narcotics and cash.

Differing views on Texas/Mexico border incursion:

The chief of the Border Patrol today urged U-S House members not to lose sight of the danger agents face each day along the Mexican border.

The situation has drawn more attention after last month’s confrontation between officers in West Texas and military-uniformed drug smugglers along the Rio Grande.

Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar says agents regularly encounter individuals hurling rocks at them from across the border, ramming their vehicles and sometimes firing at them. (Empahsis mine)

New York Times: US Cites Rise in Violence Along Border With Mexico P

Mexican criminal syndicates are stepping up their attacks on American agents patrolling the border as officials of the Homeland Security Department intensify efforts to stem the flow of immigrants and drugs into the United States, American officials said this week.

In recent months, scores of Border Patrol agents have been fired upon or pelted with large stones as well as with cloth-covered stones that have been doused with flammable liquid and set ablaze. Since October, agents have been attacked in more than 190 cases, officials said on Thursday.

ON THE BORDER: Within hours, violence claims 2 Mexican lawmen:

The police chief of a wealthy suburb of this bustling industrial city was gunned down Monday, shortly after the top police official of another northern Mexican community was kidnapped and shot dead.

Hector Ayala, chief of police for the town of San Pedro Garza Garcia, was driving in nearby Monterrey, whose sprawling metro area is Mexico’s third-largest, when a car overtook his vehicle and opened fire.

Times Online UK: Huge tunnel undermines border

Mexican officials have discovered the deepest tunnel ever gouged under the US border, equipped with electricity and ventilation and concealing two tonnes of cannabis.
The scale of the tunnel — the 21st discovered in more than four years — stunned authorities, who said that the passageway revealed the lengths to which smugglers would go to evade detection.

The underground smuggling route began near the airport in Tijuana, Mexico, and ended 2,400ft (720m) away in a warehouse in San Diego in the US, Michael Unzueta, special agent in charge of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Diego, said. It was unclear how long the tunnel had been in operation, he added.

The 60ft-deep (18m) tunnel had a concrete floor, electric lights that ran down one of the hard soil walls and air piped from the surface. An adult could nearly stand in the 5ft-high (1.5m) shaft. “It was like being in a cavern or a cave,” Mr Unzueta said. “It’s just huge, absolutely incredible.”

Conclusion
The instability along the US-Mexican border areas demonstrate the increasing vulnerability of a US that is no longer protected by its vast oceans nor its once-calm borders. If the narcot-gangs continue its viral infection of the US-Mexico borderlands, intertwining with terrorism and corruption, the US will have a soft and vulnerable underbelly threatened by modern, globally connected and resourceful gangs. Nation-states have difficulty adapting fighting such organizations.

Unlike other countries, such as Russia, the US is not accustomed with border instability issues, it will be challenging for the US to understand how to control it borders – a very basic act for a nation-state. Before it was simply about illegal immigration, but now the stakes are higher: narco-fueled terrorism, narco-fueled corruption, nexus between narco-gangs and Islamic terrorism and so on.

But the situation has not reached the tipping point yet, the US must act boldly and strongly reconsider its “War on Drugs” program as the only effective method to de-escalate the narco-gangs driven violence and the instability it brings.