*   *   *

GIVE WAR A CHANCE?

 

Will Iranian military sites be stumbling block for nuke talks?

With a June 30 deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement between the P5+1 and Iran fast approaching, the question of whether international inspectors will have access to military sites in Iran is being presented as a major stumbling block. However, while some work remains, the parties are closer to a solution than the differing domestic narratives would indicate. A relatively straight-forward solution exists. While the administration has reflected the messaging of many Iran hawks in claiming that a final agreement will provide for “anytime, anywhere” access for inspectors, Iran has bristled at such proclamations and stated that military sites are off limits.  More

 

The Great Iran PMD Freakout

It was always going to happen this way. As talks between Iran and key world powers approached a June 30 deadline, the toughest issues would emerge not only as sticking points in the negotiations themselves but as political footballs to be fought over by opponents of talks on both sides. Such a case came to the fore over the past week: the so-called PMD issue, what diplomats call the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program.  News came down last week, in a report from the Associated Press, that the five UN Security Council countries plus Germany—known as the P5+1—appeared poised to accept a final deal that did not resolve these questions… What these critics of diplomacy seem to miss at every step, then, is that a deal was always going to be a compromise. When many critics spit out the word “concession” with derision, what they’re actually talking about are “compromises”—the foundation of any successful nuclear deal. Critics, if they want, can consider each compromise a “cave-in” or “collapse” of the American position, but that’s how negotiations work: both sides have opening bids and they meet in the middle.  Yet the critics want none of it, and that makes perfect sense: they don’t really want a deal.  More

 

*   *   *   *

NEW WARS / OLD WARS – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

 

House Rejects Bid to Force Troop Withdrawal in Iraq, Syria

The House on Wednesday refused to order the withdrawal of U.S. forces deployed to fight Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria by the end of the year. The measure was defeated, 288-139. It would have directed that troops be withdrawn within 30 days of passage, or by the end of the year, if Congress fails to authorize the fight against Islamic State militants. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the resolution was needed to "force Congress to do its job" and vote on whether to formally authorize military action against Islamic State militants. President Barack Obama requested such a resolution in February, but it has stalled in Congress.  More

 

All Mass Reps – with the exception of Scott Moulton -- voted for the measure.

 

BACEVICH: Washington in Middle East Wonderland

So what the former secretary of defense, think tank CEO, and retired general chose not to say in fretting about ISIS is as revealing as what they did say.  Here are some of the things they chose to overlook:

  * ISIS would not exist were it not for the folly of the United States in invading -- and breaking -- Iraq in the first place; we created the vacuum that ISIS is now attempting to fill.

  * U.S. military efforts to pacify occupied Iraq from 2003 to 2011 succeeded only in creating a decent interval for the United States to withdraw without having to admit to outright defeat; in no sense did “our” Iraq War end in anything remotely approximating victory, despite the already forgotten loss of thousands of American lives and the expenditure of trillions of dollars.

  * For more than a decade and at very considerable expense, the United States has been attempting to create an Iraqi government that governs and an Iraqi army that fights; the results of those efforts speak for themselves: they have failed abysmally.

Now, these are facts.  Acknowledging them might suggest a further conclusion: that anyone proposing ways for Washington to put things right in Iraq ought to display a certain sense of humility.  The implications of those facts -- behind which lies a policy failure of epic proportions -- might even provide the basis for an interesting discussion on national television.  But that would assume a willingness to engage in serious self-reflection.  This, the culture of Washington does not encourage, especially on matters related to basic national security policy.   More

 

The secret of ISIL’s appeal

As a show of good faith, the U.S. should cut off all funding for substate and nonstate proxies and end unconditional military and geopolitical assistance for Middle Eastern tyrants and Israel. Perhaps most important, the U.S. should cease picking sides and intervening in conflicts in which there are no direct and urgent national security imperatives — although even most of these challenges can be well managed through domestic security measures to repel any immediate threats and by leveraging diplomatic and humanitarian measures or policy reforms to address underlying issues.  More

 

As Stress Drives Off Drone Operators, Air Force Must Cut Flights

After a decade of waging long-distance war through their video screens, America’s drone operators are burning out, and the Air Force is being forced to cut back on the flights even as military and intelligence officials are demanding more of them over intensifying combat zones in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.  The Air Force plans to trim the flights by the armed surveillance drones to 60 a day by October from a recent peak of 65 as it deals with the first serious exodus of the crew members who helped usher in the era of war by remote control. Air Force officials said that this year they would lose more drone pilots, who are worn down by the unique stresses of their work, than they can train.   More

 

Death of al-Qaida leader masks reality of drone strikes: they don't bring stability

 “We are constantly told that US drones are surgically precise,” said Cori Crider of the human rights charity Reprieve. “But any weapon – especially a remote-controlled one – is only as accurate as the intelligence behind it. At least 38 people died before a CIA strike finally killed this man. Who were the rest? How many lives did we take in the effort to assassinate al-Wuhayshi? How many have we driven into the arms of militants with the 38 others we killed? The secret drone war conceals a mountain of hidden costs, and the idea we can bomb our way out of the problem of terrorism is short-sighted and, ultimately, false.”  More

 

Prelude to a Quagmire

U.S. leaders often repeat that the overall goal in Iraq is to “ultimately defeat” the Islamic State… If U.S. forces plan, resource, and command these campaigns, then they will be tempted to do other things, as well… The president and his advisors are probably aware that they are on the slippery slope. They hope that the Islamic State will be defeated by a reinvigorated, multi-sectarian Iraqi Army, backed by limited and selective use of U.S. air power. But if this new security force cannot be built — and experience suggests that it cannot — the United States will be faced with two choices: It can follow the path traced above, a path that leads the United States back into direct participation in conventional combat in Iraq, as well as open-ended stabilization operations. Or the president can admit that all this talk of ultimately defeating the Islamic State is exactly that — talk. Instead, the United States will have to settle for containment, which can be achieved at bargain prices, with a low U.S. profile.   More

 

Neocon Victoria Nuland, the Undiplomatic Diplomat, pushes Ukraine Intervention

McCain’s gushing approval of Nuland is shared by many on Capitol Hill, including large numbers of Democrats. But there’s one place where Nuland is far more polarizing: Europe, the very continent where her job requires her to cultivate strong and trusting relationships.

In interviews with Foreign Policy, her European colleagues have described her as “brash,” “direct,” “forceful,” “blunt,” “crude,” and occasionally, “undiplomatic.” But they also stressed that genuine policy differences account for their frustrations with her — in particular, her support for sending arms to Ukraine as the country fends off a Russian-backed rebellion, a policy not supported by the White House… The great irony of Victoria Nuland is that the same qualities that make her a superstar in Washington make her controversial in Europe at a time when transatlantic ties are under incredible strain… In Europe, Nuland is widely presumed to be the leading advocate for shipping weapons to Kiev — a proposal bitterly opposed by the Germans, Hungarians, Italians, and Greeks who fear setting off a wider conflict with Moscow.  More

 

Why Arming Ukraine Is a Really Bad Idea

Ending Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine should be an important objective of U.S. policy and is an essential first step in stabilizing the country and facilitating political and economic reforms there. Moreover, the longer the conflict continues, the greater the risks to Ukraine’s fragile political order and to wider U.S. security aims in Europe. Nevertheless, advocates of lethal arms supplies to Ukraine have not yet met the first requirement of policy making—demonstrating with reasonable confidence that their proposed course of action will produce the results they want and expect, rather than something worse.   More