Should the US (and NATO) Arm Ukraine?

[Jordan]

I asked you before for evidence of this, but instead of providing any, you've just repeated the same thing as if repeating it somehow makes it true. It doesn't.

The fact that the U.S. government -- not the CIA -- selected the members of the governing council, and that it preferred a more moderate government over one that would be led by someone like Moqtada al-Sadr, or one that would be beholden to Iran, wasn't a secret. Crocker spoke about that, the Secretary of State spoke about it, and maybe the President as well. They're not in the CIA.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/28/what-we-left-behind?currentPage=all

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

Both the CIA and State Department combed Iraq looking for a new leader in 2004-2005 and once they found one coerced the current Iraqi regime into supporting Maliki.

 

[gourimoko]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/28/what-we-left-behind?currentPage=all

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

Both the CIA and State Department combed Iraq looking for a new leader in 2004-2005 and once they found one coerced the current Iraqi regime into supporting Maliki.

@The Human Q-Tip , I wanted to actually see if you really believed what you were saying.

You've double-downed on saying that the CIA had no involvement in controlling the outcome of the Iraqi elections and the Prime Ministership.

This is patently false.

On top of these references I can provide you with no less than 15 different reports from universities and news articles.

The reason I'm saying this is because I suspect that again, you're not really aware of the realities on the ground and instead are simply assuming that any mention of the CIA is conspiratorial or "nefarious" in your own words.

I want to know that if I provide this evidence would you yield the point and admit that you were in fact in error?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@The Human Q-Tip , I wanted to actually see if you really believed what you were saying.

You've double-downed on saying that the CIA had no involvement in controlling the outcome of the Iraqi elections and the Prime Ministership.

No, I haven't. I asked for evidence that the elections were rigged, and you responded with:

Nouri al-Maliki was literally installed as the Iraqi PM by the CIA and ruled the country for 8 years.

Which of course was a typical non-answer to the question of whether or not the elections themselves were rigged.... So just for fun, how about actually answering the question I posed? Do you think the CIA interfered with the counting of the votes, etc.., or not?

In any case, no, Maliki was not "literally installed as the Iraqi PM by the CIA," and I'll "double-down" on denying that. Because jking was making a similar -- though less extreme -- claim, I asked him for specifics as to what he meant. He didn't provide any, and neither have you. You just kind of made that extremely bold statement without ever explaining what you actually meant by it specifically. And literally, your statement is clearly false. He was "installed" as PM by the Iraqi National Assembly, not the CIA.

Now, I absolutely believe that our government as an entity tried to influence the results of the elections by supporting favored candidates. That may have involved some level of CIA activity, which might include things like helping to fund the campaign of a candidate. And we made clear that there were some people we would work with, and some we wouldn't. But we did not have anything close to a free hand so that we could simply pick the guy we want and "install" him ourselves. Ultimately, the Iraqis cast the actual votes, and Iraqi politicians negotiated the results.

I want to know that if I provide this evidence would you yield the point and admit that you were in fact in error?

You made the claim, not me. If you don't want to provide factual support unless I agree with it before even having seen it, that's your call.

And other than "the CIA literally installed" al-Maliki as the PM, you haven't made a specific point period, so I don't even know what you're be asking me to agree to.

The CIA is the boogeyman for a lot of people, and just because someone claims the CIA was involved does not make it true. Alleging links to the CIA is a great way to discredit an opponent or a policy with which someone disagrees. Nor does a vague claim of CIA "involvement" equate to the CIA selecting and installing whomever it wanted. If someone on the CIA payroll gave a ride to a particular candidate, that's "involvement."

 

[gourimoko]

No, I haven't. I asked for evidence that the elections were rigged, and you responded with:



Which of course was a typical non-answer to the question of whether or not the elections themselves were rigged.... So just for fun, how about actually answering the question I posed? Do you think the CIA interfered with the counting of the votes, etc.., or not?

In any case, no, Maliki was not "literally installed as the Iraqi PM by the CIA," and I'll "double-down" on denying that. Because jking was making a similar -- though less extreme -- claim, I asked him for specifics as to what he meant. He didn't provide any, and neither have you. You just kind of made that extremely bold statement without ever explaining what you actually meant by it specifically. And literally, your statement is clearly false. He was "installed" as PM by the Iraqi National Assembly, not the CIA.

Now, I absolutely believe that our government as an entity tried to influence the results of the elections by supporting favored candidates. That may have involved some level of CIA activity, which might include things like helping to fund the campaign of a candidate. And we made clear that there were some people we would work with, and some we wouldn't. But we did not have anything close to a free hand so that we could simply pick the guy we want and "install" him ourselves. Ultimately, the Iraqis cast the actual votes, and Iraqi politicians negotiated the results.



You made the claim, not me. If you don't want to provide factual support unless I agree with it before even having seen it, that's your call.

And other than "the CIA literally installed" al-Maliki as the PM, you haven't made a specific point period, so I don't even know what you're be asking me to agree to.

The CIA is the boogeyman for a lot of people, and just because someone claims the CIA was involved does not make it true. Alleging links to the CIA is a great way to discredit an opponent or a policy with which someone disagrees. Nor does a vague claim of CIA "involvement" equate to the CIA selecting and installing whomever it wanted. If someone on the CIA payroll gave a ride to a particular candidate, that's "involvement."

By the way

So in order for the CIA to have manipulated the elections and selection of the Prime Minister, your new imposed qualification/condition is that they must have "interfered with the counting of the votes?"

I don't think anyone said the CIA was stuffing the ballot boxes; nor was that implied.

Honestly, I'm just trying to narrow the scope of the shiftiness of your arguments. They tend to sway to and fro whenever you're demonstrated to have been in error.

I just don't want to waste my time, again, sourcing and citing a dozen articles for you to say "but that wasn't my point," as you tend to do.

And yes, if you agree that you would admit yourself in error if I provide evidence that the CIA was involved in the selection of the Iraqi PM, then I'll go ahead and get started with writing up a detailed post.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So in order for the CIA to have manipulated the elections and selection of the Prime Minister, your new imposed qualification/condition is that they must have "interfered with the counting of the votes?"

You keep moving your bar.... But yes, they had to have interfered with the counting of the votes (at a minimum) to establish that they "literally installed" Maliki. Because no matter who the U.S. preferred, that preference was still constrained by the votes of the newly-elected National Assembly. Anyone opposed by the majority of the National Assembly couldn't get elected. We had influence, but not control. Unless we cheated at the ballot box. And again, the influence we did have would not have been primarily the CIA, but all the other sources of influence I mention below. For example, threats to withhold significant aid, etc., would come from the President, Crocker, etc..

quote]And yes, if you agree that you would admit yourself in error if I provide evidence that the CIA was involved in the selection of the Iraqi PM, then I'll go ahead and get started with writing up a detailed post.[/QUOTE]

Oh, so now it is just that the CIA was "involved" in the selection of the PM, not that it "literally installed" the PM?

Sure, I'll go with "involved". It's a sufficiently indefinite term that it could essentially cover just about anything. Likewise, I'm sure Ambassador Crocker, the U.S. military, the State Department, Al-Sadr, the Iranians, al-Sistani, and many others were involved.

 

[Sebastian]

Off topic, but I would like to see the cites for the CIA claim.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/28/what-we-left-behind?currentPage=all

Okay, that's a good starting point. I'll assume that the author is telling the truth as it was told to him. That leaves a rather massive hole, though, regarding whether the Iraqis author interviewed were being completely honest with him, or whether they were changing the narrative for their own purposes, either to evade blame/responsibility or something else.

In any case, even taking it all as true, I don't see anything in that article supporting gouri's claim that the CIA "literally installed" Al-Maliki. I'll try to summarize it.

The U.S. government wanted a leader who could end sectarian fighting and help bring peace. Nothing sinister or wrong about that motivation, right? Iraq held elections in December -- no claim that we interfered -- and it was the resultant Assembly that had to choose the PM. And before quoting the article, I'll point out that incumbent at the time of the election was Prime Minister Al-Jaafari who had been chosen by the U.S. appointed Governing Council. The article then says:

In parliamentary elections the previous December, a coalition of Shiite parties had won the most votes. But their nominee for Prime Minister, the incumbent, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, was struggling to form a government. An avuncular, bookish figure, Jaafari had infuriated Bush with his indecisiveness, amiably presiding over the sectarian bloodbath that had followed the recent bombing of a major Shiite shrine.

During the videoconference, Bush asked Khalilzad, “Can you get rid of Jaafari?”

“Yes,” Khalilzad replied, “but it will be difficult.”

That's all Khalilzad's version of events, which may or may not be reliable. I'm skeptical that Bush and Blair (who was also supposedly on that videoconference) would be that blunt -- most likely, they probably said something like "are there alternatives"?. But look, the article states that Jaafari was struggling to form a government before the U.S./Britain got involved. In fact, if you look at the timeline, it was nearly 5 months from the election until the government was actually formed, and that was due to Iraqi internal issues, not the U.S.. It then goes on:

For several days, Khalilzad told me, he worked to block Jaafari from securing a parliamentary majority, and finally he succeeded. But, as a condition for withdrawing quietly, Jaafari insisted that Iraq’s next Prime Minister come from his party, the Islamist group known as Dawa, which for five decades had fought tenaciously for Shiite interests. Ali al-Adeeb, a well-liked party official, seemed to be a logical candidate. But Khalilzad was troubled by Adeeb; his father was Iranian, and many Iraqis were already convinced that Iran secretly controlled their country. “He’s of Persian blood,” Khalilzad said. “This is what they believe.”

Frustrated, Khalilzad turned to the C.I.A. analyst assigned to his office, a fluent Arabic speaker whose job was to know Iraq’s leaders. “Can it be that, in this country of thirty million people, the choice of Prime Minister is either Jaafari, who is incompetent, or Ali Adeeb, who is Iranian? Isn’t there anyone else?”“I have a name for you,” the C.I.A. officer said. “Maliki.”

That's the only mention in that article of the CIA having any role at all in the election of the PM. You had Jaafari, an Iraqi, insisting that the PM be a member of Dawa. You had Khalilzad, another Iraqi, deciding on his own that another Dawa leader, Adeeb, wasn't suitable. Khalilzad then asks a guy he claims was CIA (no way of knowing if that was true or not) if he knew of anyone who was in Dawa that wasn't incompetent or an Iranian stooge. That person (perhaps State Department, who knows) says "Maliki". The article contineus:

Among the Americans, Maliki was largely unknown, though he served on the committee charged with purging the Iraqi government of former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. “He’s clean,” the C.I.A. officer said; he wasn’t corrupt, and he had no apparent connection to terrorist activities. “We haven’t got any evidence on him.” And, unlike Jaafari, Maliki was “a tough guy,” seemingly able to defy the Iranian regime.

“Let me meet him,” Khalilzad said.

And that's it. An Iraqi trying to form a government asks for information on a potential PM candidate, and it's supplied. Where's the impropriety? And it was Khalilzad who decided that Maliki was suitable after meeting him, and the duly elected National Assembly that voted him in as an acceptable candidate. If Khalilzad didn't like him, or the Assembly wouldn't approve him, that would have been that.

 

[gourimoko]

You keep moving your bar.... But yes, they had to have interfered with the counting of the votes (at a minimum) to establish that they "literally installed" Maliki.

I see... lol.

I'm glad we got that sorted before we went around in circles again.. Nope, CIA didn't stuff ballots as far as I know; and if that's the only way you'd come to the conclusion that the CIA was chiefly responsible for the selection of al-Maliki, then there's no point in going further.

I just wanted to know if my time would have been wasted, and it surely would have been.

 

[Sebastian]

Since it is the summer doldrum season, I thought I would kickstart this thread again. Ukraine remains a frozen conflict but other danger zones are getting hot.

Russia remains provocative toward NATO, but more troublesome is its attitude toward Finland and Sweden lately. Rehearsed attacks on Gotland and the Aland Islands, airspace and maritime incursions, shooting flares at Swedish jets have all occurred in the past few months.

Now, Russia is questioning the legal sovereignty of the Baltic states. The conditions for a Russian attack on the Baltics have never been more favorable, and their chances at achieving victory without war remains strong through 2020. Some observations on the situation:

1. Sweden and Finland are seriously considering NATO membership; something unthinkable two years ago. This is a product of their complete disarmament after the Cold War. Sweden cannot defend Gotland against any Russian attack and has a mere 25,000 troops in their army and only 80 serviceable tanks which ranks them below Georgia in capability. Naturally, by bullying Sweden and Finland toward NATO, Russia responds with threats against both nations for even considering it.

2. Any attack on the Baltic states, for whatever reason, would require a Russian attack and occupation of Gotland. By seizing Gotland the Russians bar any NATO attempts at reinforcing the Baltics or launching a counter-attack.

3. NATO is incapable of defending the Baltic states right now. A former commander of mine, now a COL at NATO HQ in Brussels has admitted that there are divisions within the Alliance as to whether an attack on the Baltics should be met with force. Moreover, the Obama administration doesn't seem to have a concrete plan to deal with a potential Russian incursion beyond the recent face-saving window dressing of placing some equipment an few hundred troops in Poland.

4. Nations on Russia's western border are rearming but no concrete progress can be made for at least four years. Sweden is moving toward armed neutrality once again but it will take years to rebuild their once formidable military (during the Cold War they had the world's 4th largest air force). Finland has reintroduced conscription and has reactivated its emergency Reserve Forces Mobilization plans. They still lack the heavy weapons in numbers to correspond with the potential size of their mobilized forces.

What manner of long-term strategy would you recommend in containing the Russians? Should we help Sweden and Finland rearm? @gourimoko @The Human Q-Tip, @jking948 ?

 

[CleveRocks]

Assuming the swedes want armed, its a no brainer. The Finns I know want the weapons and are completey capable of fighting russians, so that too is a no brainer. I am not convinced Putin can manage conflicts on all sides, though I dont doubt he would try it.

I think the best strategy is to arm the right Ukranians, (have to be careful about infiltration) and any other border state that is willing. The Baltics, know what it means to be occupied by the Russian. They won't be the pansy soldiers that the iraqi army is now.

 

[Jordan]

When I posted a few months ago my answer was along the lines of "fuck if I know what to do" and it has remained the same.

With that said, a few observations.:

1) Arming Sweden and Finland may be a good strategy in a vacuum. I.E., if we don't need to consider how Russia would react in other regional conflicts. Unfortunately, any arming of Sweden and Finland could result in Russia destabilizing conflicts in East Asia (South China Sea, ASEAN, etc.) and the Middle East (potential Iran deal, fight against ISIS, politicide in Syria, and civil war in Yemen).

2) From a moral standpoint, especially if Finland and Sweden want help, the answer is clearly we should do it. Arming early could prevent an eventual war from occurring, especially if Russia decides the fiscal costs would be to high.

3) Putin from the get go has stated he wants to form a sort of "Eurasian Union" to oppose the EU and US. This is all part of that game.

Finally, I'm all for doing what it takes to stop Putin from creating another World War. I just fear that a direct military involvement via the U.S. will escalate the chances of war. It's a tough situation and I'm not sure what we should/can do.

 

[Sebastian]

When I posted a few months ago my answer was along the lines of "fuck if I know what to do" and it has remained the same.

With that said, a few observations.:

1) Arming Sweden and Finland may be a good strategy in a vacuum. I.E., if we don't need to consider how Russia would react in other regional conflicts. Unfortunately, any arming of Sweden and Finland could result in Russia destabilizing conflicts in East Asia (South China Sea, ASEAN, etc.) and the Middle East (potential Iran deal, fight against ISIS, politicide in Syria, and civil war in Yemen).

2) From a moral standpoint, especially if Finland and Sweden want help, the answer is clearly we should do it. Arming early could prevent an eventual war from occurring, especially if Russia decides the fiscal costs would be to high.

3) Putin from the get go has stated he wants to form a sort of "Eurasian Union" to oppose the EU and US. This is all part of that game.

Finally, I'm all for doing what it takes to stop Putin from creating another World War. I just fear that a direct military involvement via the U.S. will escalate the chances of war. It's a tough situation and I'm not sure what we should/can do.

Good points.

1. I tend to think Russia is bound to be a pain in our ass no matter what. The world-view that has been cultivated by Putin and the nationalists since 2001 is one where Russia is the aggrieved party and the US is keeping them down out of malice. You see, Russia is a great power and only through conflict with the US, via other means, can they redress the perceived imbalance. Not helping friendly nations so that they won't behave poorly is little more than extortion and perhaps deterrence is better than allowing them to get away with their shenanigans.

2. Putin's Eurasian Union has been a bitter disappointment. His belligerence and sudden closeness with China would indicate that he is embarking on a new project to bend Russia's "near-abroad" to his will in a way the Eurasian Union hasn't.

3. I think armed neutrality from Finland and Sweden is great for both NATO and Russia. It provides a buffer that defuses tensions. Of course, I think recently declassified information on Swedish cooperation with NATO during the Cold War may be the reason why Russia is saber-rattling. Sweden may claim to be neutral but everyone knows who will they will side with in a conflict.

4. I think selling arms to Finland is a good idea and I think leasing arms to Sweden, until their own formidable arms industry can re-equip their military, is the best policy to reinstitute armed neutrality on Russia's periphery.

These are interesting times for Scandinavian policy wonks.

 

[CleveRocks]

Looks like I will be on Sweden at the end of the month, so I will ask a few what they think.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Now, Russia is questioning the legal sovereignty of the Baltic states....NATO is incapable of defending the Baltic states right now. A former commander of mine, now a COL at NATO HQ in Brussels has admitted that there are divisions within the Alliance as to whether an attack on the Baltics should be met with force.

Honestly, that's pretty frightening. Because if you know that, then it's pretty safe to assume that Russian intel is telling them the same thing. And if they get convinced that NATO won't actually defend the Baltic States.....

4. Nations on Russia's western border are rearming but no concrete progress can be made for at least four years. Sweden is moving toward armed neutrality once again but it will take years to rebuild their once formidable military (during the Cold War they had the world's 4th largest air force). Finland has reintroduced conscription and has reactivated its emergency Reserve Forces Mobilization plans. They still lack the heavy weapons in numbers to correspond with the potential size of their mobilized forces.

What manner of long-term strategy would you recommend in containing the Russians? Should we help Sweden and Finland rearm? @gourimoko @The Human Q-Tip, @jking948 ?

Shocking what has happened to the Swedish military. They used to make a lot of their own equipment, and some of it was pretty damn good. They had that weird hybrid tank/tank destroyer "S" tank back in the 70's/80's that was pretty decent.

But to answer the question, I'm not convinced that the Russian military is all that effective either. There are persistent reports of Russian troops deserting to avoid combat in the Ukraine, so how the hell would they feel about the Baltic States or Scandinavia? I think the odds of them being able to fight and win a sustained conflict outside Russia are pretty low. In other words, I think a large part of this is a bluff -- sort of like Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland.

So, it is absolutely imperative that we support rearmament of the Scandinavian countries, as well as make very clear our intention to defend the Baltics, perhaps with a small tripwire force permanently stationed in Estonia or something. Because I think the best way to ensure the Russians don't try something is to let them know they'll be in for a real fight if they do. And Putin, while arrogant as hell, isn't stupid enough to do that.

As for the impact on Russian policy in Asia, I don't think what we do in Europe will make a damn bit of difference. Putin is like water -- he'll flow to wherever there is a crack, and if he sees cracks in Asia, he'll push his luck there regardless of what we do in Europe.

 

[Sebastian]

Honestly, that's pretty frightening. Because if you know that, then it's pretty safe to assume that Russian intel is telling them the same thing. And if they get convinced that NATO won't actually defend the Baltic States.....



Shocking what has happened to the Swedish military. They used to make a lot of their own equipment, and some of it was pretty damn good. They had that weird hybrid tank/tank destroyer "S" tank back in the 70's/80's that was pretty decent.

But to answer the question, I'm not convinced that the Russian military is all that effective either. There are persistent reports of Russian troops deserting to avoid combat in the Ukraine, so how the hell would they feel about the Baltic States or Scandinavia? I think the odds of them being able to fight and win a sustained conflict outside Russia are pretty low. In other words, I think a large part of this is a bluff -- sort of like Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland.

So, it is absolutely imperative that we support rearmament of the Scandinavian countries, as well as make very clear our intention to defend the Baltics, perhaps with a small tripwire force permanently stationed in Estonia or something. Because I think the best way to ensure the Russians don't try something is to let them know they'll be in for a real fight if they do. And Putin, while arrogant as hell, isn't stupid enough to do that.

As for the impact on Russian policy in Asia, I don't think what we do in Europe will make a damn bit of difference. Putin is like water -- he'll flow to wherever there is a crack, and if he sees cracks in Asia, he'll push his luck there regardless of what we do in Europe.

I. The Swedes still have a very robust arms industry that produces excellent weaponry. They are among the world leaders in arms exports, though they just passed a so-called "Democracy Rule" that prohibits them from selling to dictatorships.

Current weapons include the the Stridsvagn 122, a modified version of the Leopard 2A7 and the CV90, armed with the venerable Bofors 40mm L/70 gun, is probably the finest IFV in the world. The SAAB JAS 39 Gripen is a superb generation 4.5 fighter. All their equipment is high quality. They just don't have enough of it. Same with the Finns. It will take a few years for their weapons sector to provide the numbers of equipment necessary. Until then, we should provide assistance.

The tank/tank-destroyer you mentioned is the Stridsvagn 103. There was one at Knox at the former Patton Museum motor pool but I never had a good look at it. NATO trials during the 80s indicated it was surprisingly effective for not having a turret. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the 200 built were scrapped in the 2000s. They should have mothballed them; they could use them right now. During the the Cold War Sweden's Army boasted over 1200 armored vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103

II. As for Russian capabilities: Yes, they aren't great but the Baltics are less able to defend themselves than Georgia (all three nations have 0 combined MBTs) and Ivan could just bulldoze their way through. Russia doesn't need to conquer Finland or Sweden to neutralize NATO's response, just seize Gotland (current garrison 150 + 750 Home Guard equipped with light weapons and 14 mothballed Stvgn 122s) and the Aland Islands in the Gulf of Finland.

So, yeah, Obama needs to step up from the half-measures and seriously look at improving Scandinavia's defense posture as well as NATO's northwestern flank. I volunteer to be new Ambassador to Sweden; I am learning the language.