RIP Woolworth's

A requiem for Woolworth's, which has just entered administration:

Even though there is no such thing as a good soda counter in Britain and even though your stock was pretty naff (translation for Americans: poor, kitsch, dominated by toys based on TV series), you were still much better than Poundland....

The best thing to come out of Woolies in recent years? This musical tribute from Nancy Griffith....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjQLGVQZI9I&feature=related[/youtube]

Breaking News: Iraq Parliamentary Vote Delayed Again

Al Jazeera's English-language website is reporting, "Iraq's parliamentary vote on a wide-ranging accord that would allow US troops to stay in the country for another three years has been delayed" for another 24 hours. Al Jazeera is still holding to the line that the agreement will be ratified but adds the latest spin from Khaled al-Attiya, the deputy speaker of the Parliament, that "the government and the UIA [Shi'a United Iraqi Alliance] were making a last-minute push to assemble a broader coalition".

What Al Jazeera does not state is why that broader coalition is essential. There was a clear risk that Sunni parties would oppose the Agreement or abstain, leaving passage in the hands of Shi'a and Kurdish groups. Ayatollah Sistani, the most important cleric in Iraq, has already made clear that, in the absence of consensus, he could not support the outcome.

The spokesman for the main Sunni bloc, the National Concord Front, is indicating that the postponement of the vote has occurred because of a deal in which the Sunni would suppose the Agreement in exchange for concessions on other issues by the Government: ""The reason for the delay is that the presidential committee of parliament and the presidential council have reached an agreement that includes a set of political reforms." The Los Angeles Times indicates that those concessions include guarantees against Shi'a-Kurdish domination of decision-making and "amnesty for detainees in U.S. custody".

Meanwhile, the McClatchy News Service has obtained and published an English translation of the Agreement, which the Bush Administration has refused to release.

And why has the US Government not allowed publication and discussion of the Agreement, even as the Iraq Parliament votes on it? McClatchy's sources give pause to any who think this is a clear-cut settlement leading to US withdrawal:

The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation than the Iraqi government of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement, U.S. officials said Tuesday....These include a provision that bans the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors.

Follow-Up: The US Bombing Strategy in Pakistan

Canuckistan pulls me up on yesterday's analysis on US strategy in Pakistan:

Sorry to be argumentive, but I disagree that the missile strikes are designed to crush the insurgency. By their very nature, they are not going to do that....

What the U.S. is doing in Pakistan is the equivalent of targetted assassinations. Targetted assassinations aren’t going to crush the insurgency, but they may slow it down even as they generate more anger and recruits (this isn’t a contradiction but there seems to have been a calculation made that killing leaders trumps new recruits generated by the attacks). It is also possible that the Taliban are hit as secondary targets–the real target remains al-Qaeda and, in that sense, it is an effort to disrupt operations and destabilize.

This is a useful correction, but I think it reinforces the concerns expressed in my original piece.

This US "targeted assassination" may have the effect of disrupting and destabilising Al-Qa'eda, but it also --- for those inclined to mythology --- may have the Hydra effect. Take out one terrorist with these tactics, and two may spring up in anger. As Canuckistan admits, this isn't a winning strategy in the sense of quelling once and for all the Al Qa'eda challenge, merely a perpetual attempt to keep the enemy on the back foot.

So this is the far-from-incidental effect of the operations. If there is no victory, only the ongoing battle, then there are the ongoing casualties in Pakistan who are not Al-Qa'eda or even Taliban. And if that is so, there will be no space for political calm and negotiation, only more and more hostility.

Which, I think, gives me the answer to the question put yesterday: "Can Washington’s planes take out enough bad guys before the Pakistani Government falls and internal conflict in the country becomes more violent?"

No.

Obama and the Centre Lane of Foreign Policy

While we're mulling over the news that Robert Gates is staying on as Secretary of Defense and awaiting the announcement of the Obama "national security team" on Friday, a comment from Maria Jacinta on another thread deserves consideration:

"Obama’s foreign policy picks so far are depressing. Gen. James Jones as National Security Adviser? He backed McCain!! It’s a centre right cabinet so far. I recall a comment from Nancy Pelosi–of all people– in the NYT after the election: “The country must be governed from the middle.” Talk about capitulation. The Democrats finally have a mandate for actual change but they don’t want to use it. Govern from the center; appoint Republicans to the cabinet.

Can you imagine the Republicans governing ‘"rom the middle" if they had won? In 2001 Bush acted as though he had a landslide mandate.

Unsurprising News of the Day: Gates to Stay On at Pentagon

The news this morning is that Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, is close to agreeing to stay on in the first year of an Obama Administration. No surprise there --- the issue was not whether the offer would be made to Gates but whether he wanted to spend more months in Government service.

The media's headline attention to Gates' retention as a sign of Obama's "bipartisan" approach, keeping or bringing in Republicans in his Cabinet, misses the significance of the story. While there may be some mileage with Congress in pointing to Obama's "centrist" approach to national security, Gates serves more important roles.

In particular, his continued stay at the Pentagon is a reassurance to military services, who are suffering from years of trampling under Donald Rumsfeld. The Secretary of Defense's approach of working with commanders, rather than imposing decisions on them, has brought some stability after the disasters of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith grand plan for a "transformed" military fighting and liberating country after country. It is also notable that Gates has pulled back on the preaching about Missile Defense as a be-all, end-all solution for the threat from "rogue states" even if, for political and strategic reasons, the US Government is still pursuing its basing strategy in Eastern Europe.

But here's the question missed in today's headlines: the continuity under Gates at the Pentagon is a continuity for what? He may have kept the military ship from sinking, assisted by the fluffy headlines of "surge is working", etc., etc., but there is no strategic approach for the immediate demands on US power.

Will an Obama/Gates Pentagon in 2009 have any approach for dealing with Al Qa'eda other than bomb, bomb, bomb in Pakistan? Is there any new strategy for Afghanistan other than putting some number of troops --- 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? --- into the country? As Iraq moves into a new stage of political in-fighting and insurgency, albeit one with a lower if still significant level of casualties, is there any consideration of a US military role other than some number of troops --- 50,000? 75,000? 100,000? --- as a deterrent to the scheming Iranians across the border?

To be fair to Gates, all of these are issues that require a political solution with military support, rather than a military solution with political justification. Unfortunately, his retention is also a sign --- that seven years into the "Long War" --- that a lot of Washington minds may still be stuck on fight first, talk later.