Good News From Iraq

After several months, the journalist Jill Carroll has been released and appears to be well and unharmed physically from the ordeal. This story came up before here she had originally been captured. As was mentioned before, she had attended a school in this area and it was one of the few times that a national story came through this town. Everyone should be pleased by this outcome and her family must be ecstatic right now.

Certainly good news out of Iraq, but certainly not the type that would satisfy the conservatives in the United States. The mere fact that a reporter who challenged the conventional wisdom that security is so adrift inside Iraq that one can't go to the source for stories is abducted herself and appears on the nightly news making announcements for the captors explicitly brings home the point that security is not viable there yet.

And judging by some comments made by an officer in the field, things are not going to be moving, on the whole, in a positive direction for quite some time. At Paul Rieckhoff's web log on the HuffingtonPost.com:

So, I asked "The Cardinal" one simple question: "What do you say when people say the media doesn't tell enough good news stories out of Iraq?"

His response:

"I never hear that because we all here know the good news stories are bullshit and do not really affect the mission in any way. It's like this thing we keep saying here about all the new people we've recruited for the iraqi police. It leaves out the fact that my platoon was in a 40 minute gun fight with the iraqi police. So you recruited more of them ... awesome!

...

"the iraqi army is making progress and we're handing over more and more to them everyday." Complete bullshit. What's the good news in the fact that all their logistics, medical, engineering, staff function, etc. is being done by us? ALL OF IT.

The full post is here. One might not find a good deal of inspiration in the notes that this soldier passes back from the field, yet it sounds suprisingly different than what the Administration senses the situation to be.

Solid, encouraging news should be disseminated from Iraq if it exists, yet if there is insecurity rampant throughout the streets of Baghdad, a "unity" government has not come close to forming, and men are discovered in the morning with bullet holes in their skulls, then that is the news from Iraq. Anything else is just a feel good piece to make those in the audience not question what is really going on in country.

Bring On The Next Three Years

Some headlines after three years:

Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 4
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, nearly 1,500 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers on Sunday sought to root out insurgents from farming villages an hour's drive north of the capital, and at least 35 people died in insurgent and sectarian violence nationwide."

Bush predicts 'victory' three years after Iraq invasion
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - Three years after invading Iraq, President George W. Bush said he had a strategy for "victory in Iraq" while administration officials denied that the country had sunk into civil war."

Iraq War Anniversary Marked With Protests
"PORTLAND, Ore. - The third anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq drew tens of thousands of protesters around the globe, from Portland to hurricane-ravaged Louisiana to Australia, with chants of "Stop the War" and calls for the withdrawal of troops."

Iraq in civil war, says former PM
"Iraq is in the middle of civil war, the country's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has told the BBC. He said Iraq had not got to the point of no return, but if it fell apart sectarianism would spread abroad."

Rumsfeld: Leaving Iraq like giving Nazis Germany
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leaving Iraq now would be the same as handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a column published on Sunday, as retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton called Rumsfeld incompetent and urged him to resign."

The executive branch is in severe trouble. There is no way out of Iraq while trying to simultaneously claim victory at something, anything so as to save face. Victory was a relatively small-sized military force quickly traveling from the border between Iraq and Kuwait and capturing Baghdad in a month's time. This the Army, Air Force, and Marines did wonderfully on the ground. A victorious occupation is an entirely different matter.

Three years of force. One hundred fifty-six weeks of rolling blackouts. Seventy-eight fortnights of haphazard reconstruction. Thirty-six months of learning about new devices meant to explode and kill. One thousand, ninety-six days of instability with the return address - U.S.A.

If there is any reason to reject imperialism, it is Iraq. If there are two reasons to reject the Domino Theory - forced governmental change 'spreading' outward - it is Vietnam and will be Iraq. If there is a yardstick that measures gross criminal negligence, it will point to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue circa 2001-2008.

Bring on the next three years.

Foreign Policy: Iran As The Next Iraq

For the past four to five months the Administration has been stepping up the heat on Iran. One might deduce from this current dialogue on the nightly news programs that Iran is in violation of some U.N. resolution and is building a nuclear bomb as we speak. Hence, President Bush needs to consider all options when dealing with Iran.

So it begins.

The public must be incredibly careful when understanding what this Administration will say with regards to the evident facts of a situation. The almost never-ending list of statements which carefully step away from reality will be legendary twenty years hence. It would appear that this situation will not be much different.

Here are the latest events:
President Bush speaking on the National Security Strategy 2006

In a 49-page national security report, the president reaffirmed the strike-first, or pre-emptive policy he first outlined in 2002. Diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons, Bush said.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur — even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.

The U.S. House wishes to put forward legislation that will sanction foreign companies that do business with Iran.

"... Illinois Republican [Henry Hyde] said the bill could "become a powerful tool to prevent Iran's development of weapons of mass destruction."

The State Department had said on Monday the mandatory sanctions would "create tensions with countries whose help we need in dealing with Iran, and shift the focus away from Iran's actions and spotlight differences between us and our allies."

The general pretext is that Iran is doing everything it can to get a nuclear bomb.

While Iran has made some missteps diplomatically in this affair, the general perception that Americans have on this issue is skewed heavily in favor of what the West Wing wants them to believe.

Often mentioned here, Professor Juan Cole has some thoughts on the pretext for war with Iran.

Some of the more relevant quotes from his article:

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring.

And:

The nuclear issue is for the most part a pretext for the Americans to exert pressure on the regime in Tehran. This is not to say that proliferation is not a worrisome issue, or that it can be ruled out that Iran wants a bomb. It is to say that the situation simply has not reached the point of crisis, and therefore other motivations must be sought for the Bush administration’s breathless rhetoric.

President Bush used the terrifying idea of dirty bombs and chemical weapons being released on American soil with a return address of Baghdad, Iraq as the pretext for the last war. It is quite simply astounding that the same gameplan is being rehashed for Iran. The popular media should be just a bit wiser today with its questions for the President - he has given ample proof that one cannot trust his word alone on a subject.

Will The Iraqis Know Hope Anytime Soon

President Bush will be talking about Iraq more in the following days and possibly weeks as the political talking heads reported this morning here in America. The going thought-process behind this was to improve the lagging poll numbers from the general public in regards to the Adminstration's handling of Iraq.

As always, when the President chooses to bolster his vision to the electorate in terms of Iraq policy, the reverse of the vision rears up and steals the headlines. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, it happens before he even utters one sentence on the subject.

In a community made up of mostly Shiites, a car bomber and mortar fire tore through people, killing 44 and injuring upwards of 200 people.

The action is not to kill (that is the necessary byproduct though), but to foment the fundamentally unstable nature that is Sunni / Shi'ia relations. In other words, the action is the reaction.

No matter what the President will have to say in the coming speeches, it will not change anything on the ground in Iraq. The United States Armed forces can't change the way things are playing out within the borders and it must be especially frustrating for them to see the country trend downward over the past two years.

A very cogent point was made on an NPR broadcast over the weekend. The interviewer was asking the question, "What needs to occur to turn Iraq around?", to which the guest suggested that providing the security that would allow all of the streets to be safe for Iraqis would go a long way in improving the situation. This makes sense on paper, as most people will admit that being able to walk around one's neighborhood without the threat of explosions makes other good things possible. This point though spells out how difficult a task this is: it only takes one dedicated individual to revoke such security.

It must be clear to a great many in and out of Washington D.C. that the presence of American forces with all their appropriate power cannot stop an internal civil war in Iraq if one were to come. If there begins organized fighting, than an American outfit cannot be responsible for taking on both parties, nor can G.I.'s side with one group over the other (witness how well this path worked for America in Beirut).

There are no good options in the current situation. Removing American forces may still yet have a negative effect on the people of Iraq. Yet the spectre of the delicate situation going from bad to worse might make a decision to remove troops the wiser path in the long run for the Iraqis.

Then again, if war were to spread to the entire region, all hell could break loose.

Thank you very much Mr. President. May history treat you kindly.

Bring Pot To Slow Boil

For the past two weeks, the country of Iraq has been experiencing what might be described as small-scale violence: bombings, killings, and political fighting. There is no structured attacks from what those on the ground can detect, yet there is a notion that it is one side versus the other - Sunnis against Shi'as.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash speaks about what is currently going on, and said, "We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in." At this moment, it would be wise policy to fully understand and acknowledge what is transpiring in Iraq. Accessing the situation as a low-intensity civil war appears to be the conclusion of most analysts. One of the important aspects of this phase of Iraq's "development" may very well be the lack of security within the country provided by the United States, or rather, the destabilizing force that America provides the country. The citizens are left to pick a side, and hope for the best.

Yet, even when things are turning quite sour for the citizenry of Iraq, the Administration seeks to reassure Americans that things are alright. General Pace made an appearance on the Sunday news program "Meet the Press" and had fairly optimistic news on the situation:

GEN. PACE: I’d say they’re going well. I wouldn’t put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they’re going very, very well from everything you look at, whether it be on the political side where they’ve had three elections, they’ve written their own constitution, they’re forming their government. You look at the military side where this time last year there were just a handful of battalions in the field, Iraqi battalions in the field. Now there are over 100 battalions in the field. They had no brigades—that’s about 3,000 men each. Now they’ve got about 31 brigades. No matter where you look at their military, their police, their society, things are much better this year than they were last.

The General would not go so far as putting a "big smiley face" on the situation, but he does go far enough to put on a sunny, grinning, cheerful face in its place. One might be tempted to place a successful stamp on the most recent election, but even the results were reported as sectarian in nature and would further foment discontent. The government has not formed as of yet, and this is three months removed from the election that would decide the body of Parliament. Kirkuk is an all-too-real flashpoint with regards to the Kurdish population and the Turks. Baghdad appears to be a lawless city. Mosques are attacked, and young men are found dead "execution style".

It might be that the Administration in Washington sees the pot on the stove full of lukewarm water, but with more statements like those of General Pace surfacing, it appears the pot is not boiling at all - it is full of ice cold water.

When Do The Troops Come Home?

In the waning months of 2005, there were calls from certain quarters that the American occupation of Iraq was no longer benefiting either country, and that a draw-down of forces was in order. From the conservative wing, the calls of cowardice belted forth, and the President himself said that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq based on artificial time-tables set by "politicians in Washington."

At the outset of March 2006, there seems little hope now of the Administration withdrawing even a moderate amount of forces without putting on display the ultimate of hypocrisies. To disallow the option of removing forces from inside the country until the Iraqi forces can stand up on their own means that as the situation worsens or becomes more tangled, the President has no option but stay the course and leave American G.I.s in harms way.

Juan Cole's article in Salon is titled "Iraq's worst week - and Bush's". The following quote is perceptive:

Tactically, strategically and politically Bush now finds himself in the worst of all possible worlds. With Americans increasingly fed up with the Iraq debacle, he needs to start drawing down troops soon, but he can't do it while the country teeters on the brink of civil war. If civil war does break out, a U.S. withdrawal will look even more like cutting and running -- under these circumstances, not even Karl Rove will be able to figure out a way to get away with simply declaring victory and going home.

This is painting oneself into the smallest of corners. By using the idea of troop redeployment/ draw down / withdrawal as a hammer to pound the Democrats with as weak on Iraq, President Bush left himself no option for just this sort of eventual crumbling of the political structures in Iraq. If the entire idea of U.S. forces peacefully removing themselves from the situation is dependent upon preventing four well-armed insurgents bombing a mosque, than there is absolutely no control at the disposal of our leadership in America. It will be years before Iraq could begin to stabilize the political institutions that democracy needs in order to grow and thrive.

One might make the analogy that a father is trying to ask the unruly children to do something. It might go something like this, "We will not go to the dentist's office to have your cavities filled until you three calm down and behave like good boys and girls." If the father makes good on his supposed threat to the children, then the little ones have the control - so long as they don't behave, then they do not have to go to the dentist office and suffer through the procedure.

The lesson is, "be careful how you word your threat."

The window to change course came in 2005 when there was some hope and sense that the Constitution (however severely flawed) in Iraq could produce some governmental form that would hold responsibility, allowing the U.S. to define to the Iraqi people a set plan for turning control over to them. It may not have stopped the events that are currently set in motion today, but certainly it would have been agreeable to 80% of that population, as polls indicate currently. That window seems closed now, and any motion to take troops out now will definitely appear to be a panicked rush to the exits.

President Bush intimates that the troops will not come home until Iraq behaves like a good democracy should. This sounds very much like an artificial timetable set by a politician in Washington, D.C., does it not?

Culpability

The events of the past twenty-four hours in Iraq bring the reality of the situation ever closer to the American public: the United States is not "winning" anything in the occupation.

It is obviously too early to declare that the Civil War has begun as that is something best left to the historical perspective, but the blood-letting on both sides is becoming much more aggressive.

What should be fairly obvious at this juncture is that President Bush is culpable for all that is transpiring today in Iraq and the greater Middle East theater. His decision, as a "last resort" to head into Iraq to topple the power structure of Saddam Hussein had led directly to what is being witnessed today.

Only one month ago the speech writers in the West Wing gave the following to President Bush:

We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy. We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.

The most regrettable thing about making these statements is that they are recorded, and can be reviewed and compared with reality at any time. The President of the United States of America is culpable, is responsible, and should be held accountable both at home and internationally for his calamitous decision.

Dialogue Interrupted Too Soon

It has been a while since I have posted for a very specific reason. On February 7th, 2006 my father died from an apparent massive heart attack. He was 62 years old, and it was a tremendous shock to me and my family to say the very least.

The reason that I mention this on my political web log is that my father was a strong guiding spirit in my political upbringing as I suppose most fathers are with their sons. Believe it or not, when I was a young boy and in fourth grade, I thought my disposition matched that of Republicans, and claimed myself as such while walking in a hall with a friend.

I'd say by about sixth or seventh grade, my views were seriously being shaped and my interest furthered by my dad's interest in current events. I thought him quite smart for offering me this analogy when talking about the then new Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars): say there are two people with handguns at the ready, cocked and loaded. If one fires, then the other immediately knows it and can pull their trigger before being wounded, assuring both of drastic injury. Now, one person puts on a bullet proof vest. What is the other person going to do?

(In passing, it should be noted that the SDI program is still being funded, and still not at all close to having what could be considered success)

We had conversations on economics, defense, Social Security, candidates (I don't believe he was a big fan of Senator Kerry, but I do recall him saying he wouldn't mind voting for Al Gore in 2000), and just recently the Medicare part D prescription drug coverage plan. I once asked him if he ever considered running for public office of some kind or another, and he shook that off with a "nah," but I believe we would have made a very intelligent public servant who actually lived by principles. But beyond what I would have wished for him, he was truly a wonderful man who cared deeply about our world and all of us in it. Well, maybe he didn't deeply care for some of those in the current Administration, but I think only 39% of America truly does now anyway.

I mentioned the following at his memorial service before his new friends in his chosen town of retirement. It went something like, "I know that my dad is in heaven, because he must have stopped by the golf God's desk and made sure that everyone had three really nice days to play golf, but on this the day of his memorial service, he had it rain so as not to give anyone an excuse to go out and play 9 holes." It went something like that, and it gave a couple folks a chuckle, but I bet Dad would have gotten a kick out of it.

He was such a good friend to me that I really don't know when or how I'll move along without him, but I do feel it was right to mention this, and let anyone and everyone know that I loved my dad.

Still do, too.

Do Elections Equate To Freedom And Then Democracy?

The recent elections by the Palestinians was the news of the week - no one was predicting such a lop-sided outcome, nor did many foresee the awkward nature of the results in terms of the United States position towards Hamas.

The immediate result was that there would be no talks with elected government of and by Hamas, as well as a suspension of aid to the Palestinian government.

"The United States is not prepared to fund an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, that advocates violence and that refuses its obligations," under an international framework for eventual Mideast peace, Rice said.

In essence, the people voted to oust the old and place in power the new, and in so doing the United States would lead the way in retaliating.

Freedom on the march, indeed.

President George W. Bush made a speech in March of 2005 where he said:

"Today, people in a long-troubled part of the world are standing up for their freedom. In the last few months, we've witnessed successful elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian Territories; peaceful demonstrations on the streets of Beirut, and steps toward democratic reform in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The trend is clear: Freedom is on the march. Freedom is the birthright and deep desire of every human soul, and spreading freedom's blessings is the calling of our time. And when freedom and democracy take root in the Middle East, America and the world will be safer and more peaceful."

So the process as the President understands it is that the people must have the freedom to vote, and then when they gain this freedom, they get to fully participate in democracy. And when the results don't match a superpower's wishes, as is the case in Iraq's Parliamentary election on December 15th, or in Iran with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the strong showing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Parliament elections in Egypt, the superpower may reserve the right to break off talks or support for the state in question.

It might help if the United States just didn't meddle in the process in the first place. Inducing radical change to a region (toppling a dictatorship that quashed freedom as well sectarian divisions ripe for exploitation by opposing sides) or egineering one side against another under the guise of national security interests is a proven recipe for political mud or much worse: results which actually contradict security interests. Neutrality some times has its advantages.

Hamas has obvious negatives: it supported suicide bombings and guerilla warfare and as is mentioned in every public statement or popular media report, the destruction of Israel. Or rather, the unification of Palestine and Israeli lands under one Islamic state. Is also has positives that undoubtedly influenced the electorate such as Article 21 of the Hamas Convenant. "Mutual social responsibility means extending assistance, financial or moral, to all those who are in need and joining in the execution of some of the work."

Maybe this was the time to bring Hamas into the greater fold of working towards the peaceful resolution of a decades long conflict. Now that the group has the responsibility and interests of the electorate to consider, moderation may become a necessary next step.

Unfortunately, the reward for winning an election is an overly strong rebuke from the United States and the European Union. Thus when you don't like who wins, be certain to marginalize and quite possibly further radicalize the government any way you can. This is not how to reward freedom nor encourage democracy.

Senator Clinton's Picking Political Cotton

Over the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday, many grand speeches were put forward remembering the man and the message of the adored civil rights leader. And then there were folks already on the campaign trail for 2008.

Al Gore delivered a fiery speech that tried to tie-in King's many encounters with an over-arching government poised to spy and track his words and movements to the current furor over the National Security Agency's roving warrantless wiretaps. It may well go along side the announcement by Representative Jack Murtha as one of the few times the Democrats actually went on record as being distinctly and vociferously against the current Administration and were not apologetic in saying so.

And then there was the address given by Senator Hillary Clinton at a Harlem church. There seemed to be too much jockeying in the stances that the junior Senator is taking as of late, and this "plantation" remark was yet another drop in the bucket for the 2008 race. Certainly a politician running for reelection in 2006 is given a wide berth for politicking, but the latest efforts by Sen. Clinton just smack of too much polling, too much shifting for an elusive center position that will win her the Presidency.

Molly Ivins, a syndicated columnist, had a humorous but truthful assessment of such strategies by quasi-liberal candidates running for office. In "Not Backing Hillary", Ms. Ivins makes some prescient if not plain observations on the state of affairs within the Democratic party. Her statements amount to, "people want what the Democrats should be standing up for on issue after issue, so make a stand on it for crying out loud." When Sen. Clinton talks about the Iraq conflict, she without hesistation clamors for the most hawkish pro-military platform that a Republican could want in a vein effort to paint herself as strong in foreign affairs. And so continues the key wedge issue for 2006, 2008, and into the forseeable future.

Coincidentally, Molly Ivins had this rebuke for the war cheerleaders:

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I’ve said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were “German dogs.” They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The minute someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless “string of bad news.”

To expand on the suggestion of Ivins, Mark Twain did have reservations about America's imperial designs on the Phillipines, and a quick search turned up "The War Prayer" by the satirist. Certainly, there is plenty to read about, hence this link to search on the subject, "Mark Twain on the Philippines". Many of the sentiments might well be applied to the current tango that the United States has ongoing with Iraq.

Bolton And Wolfowitz: Separated At Birth?

While John Bolton's leadership style was seriously questioned during his Senate confirmation hearings (and further still after his recess appointment), there was very little said about Paul Wolfowitz's managerial skills before his accension to the World Bank.

Apparently there are grumblings amidst those career employees at the World Bank with the new team installed at the behest of Wolfowitz. From Steve Clemon's The Washington Note, the following quote comes forward:

According to one senior insider who feels as if Wolfowitz is gut-punching the most talented teams at the bank and indicated that morale is plummeting, "Wolfowitz just does not talk to his Vice Presidents. He speaks to a few close advisors -- Kevin Kellems, Robin Cleveland, Karl Jackson, some others -- but a lot of very good people are leaving."

There must be a spirit that dominates the Bush Administration that one who listens to others not of sufficient conservative lineage ought not to be included in the first place.

Being Mindful Of An Iranian Misstep

A recent article by Sami Moubayed (thanks to Joshua Landis's SyriaComment.com post and link) titled "Iran and the art of crisis management" makes many fine points regarding the Western world's reaction to Iran's resumption of nuclear activities. The counter-balance that Moubayed's insight brings is well-timed given the imminent escalation of the matter to the United Nations Security Council led by the United States.

In essence, the article maintains that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's purpose in all of this is not to become the next Stalin, but rather to reinforce his position as a popular leader within his own borders. While he maintains the leadership position within his country, he is not a dictator in the image of Saddam Hussein; Ahmadinejad must answer to many powers within Iran much like the U.S. President must answer before Congress.

By proclaiming the Holocaust never occurred and that Israel must be wiped off the map, Ahmadinejad makes good with those that voted him into power. It also establishes the reflex reaction by the American government which, while not directly related to the comments, will want to crack down on the country and its nuclear intentions. It allows the Iranian President to look tough when he faces up to these verbal challenges.

From the article:

Ahmadinejad, by being so controversial, believes he can survive the storm with Washington. If a showdown with the West arises, he would welcome it and not shy away from confrontation, seeing it as a golden opportunity to make history and secure for himself a legacy as the man who fought the US.

Let us not forget that this man's idols are Nasser and Khomeini, not Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi. Confrontation that would not break him would actually make him stronger inside Iran. If Washington ignored Ahmadinejad, the results would be much more rewarding for the US. The Americans must accept the reality that sooner or later, as long as they are weak in the Middle East and defeated in Iraq, Iran will develop its nuclear program.

It has the power, money and intention to do so. If Iran does achieve this power, the US should find creative ways to persuade Iran, by diplomacy rather than confrontation, not to use these weapons for war purposes. One way is to remember that Iran has no direct conflict with Israel. It is at war with the Zionist state because Israel is at war with the Palestinians. If a fair Palestinian-Israeli peace deal were reached under US auspices, then Iran would have no reason to be at war with Israel.

Many of these issues that surround the Middle East political climate are wrapped up in histories that are centuries old, if not millenia. When the Western powers (with the U.S. at the helm) make the strategic move of drawing a line from Point A to Point B, it is more than likely to miscalculate the outcome in the long-term. Witness Iraq's current struggle just to maintain a viable state entity.

A military solution is a guaranteed failure and it is unfortunate that Iran already knows this.

Will Murtha Be Right After All?

Representative Jack Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces out of Iraq late last year, which sent the conservatives in Congress and the media flying into spastic rage with insults and epithets aplenty. All that for proposing an idea in a democracy. It truly was an embarassing day for the Republicans.

At this moment Vice President Cheney is meeting with Arab leaders on his tour of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. From a UPI article (thanks to Juan Cole for spotting this) titled "U.S. seeking Arab peacekeepers in Iraq", it is put forward that the Administration is trying to talk other Arab nations to sponsor troops in Iraq, giving the United States an open invitation to leave.

Get ready Republican backbenchers in Congress to let loose with "cut and run", "cowardice", and "dishonor" on the floor come Tuesday.

Additionally in the article, it is noted that Vice President Cheney's last visit to Egypt came in the barnstorming tour of the Middle East in 2002 to drum up support for the scheduled military adventure in Iraq. At the time, Juan Cole's web log summed up the meetings with this excerpt:

In Egypt, at a news conference at Sharm El Sheikh, President Hosni Mubarak "voiced opposition to any U.S. plan to topple Iraq's Saddam Hussein". He added, "It is of vital importance to maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. This is a must for preserving regional stability," The words "very unwise" keep popping up in the press reports, following the VP like signature line in a stand up routine.

How likely will it be that these countries, which opposed the invasion in the first place or at least had strong misgivings, will take the lead in occupying the powder keg that is America's Iraq?

Close To Home

Recently a reporter was abducted in Iraq which typically is not that shocking in regards to news (it gives one perspective on how Iraq is doing currently), except there was a direct connection to the town I live in. In the local weekly paper, the lead story is about Jill Carroll and her abduction. I had heard about it on the news around January 8, but hadn't thought much of it.

Seeing the newspaper headline and visiting the Christian Science Monitor web site, for some strange reason it struck me as close. Ms. Carroll attended college in Amherst as a journalism student, and from the glimpse that the both papers offered, she truly treasured her work.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a loved one placed in harm's way in Iraq, much less learning of a fate such as this. It makes Iraq look like nothing more than sheer tragedy.

The Next Eleven Months Of Scandal

There will be an election in November for the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate. This mid-term election will turn on how corrupt both bodies have become under the leadership of the Republican party.

Republicans will run on a plank of immigration reform in order to set up the Democrats for being weak on border security. Quite possibly the House and Senate leadership will also state that they are for Lobbying Reform as well, headed up by the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich playing the pied piper.

It will not work.

The greater issue will no doubt be the interminable conflict in the Iraq. As Iraq goes, so goes the country's mood. More deaths, more instability, and no end in sight with regards to cost may leave voters in an overall negative mood.

Add the corruption. Before too long, the phrase "K-Street Project" will be on the minds of millions of citizens. How bad could it get for the Republicans? It all depends on how many names Abramoff gives up, and in turn how much heat is placed on aides, press secretaries and legislators who were in the know. Tom DeLay had many favors to call-in on his associates and received many contributions to his PACs and charitable organizations. Names such as Rep. Bob Ney, Adam Kidan, David Safavian and Ralph Reed will be common for the first round of scandalous expositions, but there will be more.

What should be understood is that this is specifically not a bipartisan foible. It is a Republican bred colossus. With the 1994 election of Republicans to Congress came a notion that this control could be cemented, if not made very efficient for their ends. The K-Street Project was a way to encourage lobbying firms to only hire those men and women that the Republicans agreed with politically. As Elizabeth Drew noted in her article linked above:

The Republican purge of K Street is a more thorough, ruthless, vindictive, and effective attack on Democratic lobbyists and other Democrats who represent businesses and other organizations than anything Washington has seen before. The Republicans don't simply want to take care of their friends and former aides by getting them high-paying jobs: they want the lobbyists they helped place in these jobs and other corporate representatives to arrange lavish trips for themselves and their wives; to invite them to watch sports events from skyboxes; and, most important, to provide a steady flow of campaign contributions.

If the public is willing to learn more and the popular media continue to keep digging, there is more than enough corruption to be identified before November 2, 2006.

It is amazing to think that there was a time in American history when legislators deemed it beneath themselves to campaign for office. Elections are now paid for and legislation is the currency.

Politics Two Thousand Five

This was not the most perfect year for the President or for Congress. The tally of political footballs fumbled is almost too long to count, but if one is to learn from the mistakes what not to do, then a review is in order.

First and foremost, the national election of 2004 did not earn the President any political treasure which would last beyond two weeks. President George W. Bush expended his energies after the inauguration rambling about the country in front of pre-screened friendly audiences about the need for his version of Social Security reform. This was a plank that was little mentioned in the last three months of his campaign for reelection, and if it was mentioned there was miniscule details presented on how he would go about an overhaul.

To be blunt, the system does face structural funding issues that might come to bear on future retirees depending on the economic cycles and forecasts used. An honest debate on how to address these issues would have served the nation well, but at the outset the Administration's position of the SSA facing an $11 trillion shortfall for the indefinite future made clear that 'honesty' was not going to be a central theme in the debate. Without honesty, the Democrats in Congress essentially waged open war on the proposal (it should be noted that there never was an official piece of legislation put forward by the Administration during these debates; it would cause the President to negotiate with himself which he said many times). The public became more skeptical of the plan of the President the more they learned about it, and when it became clear that after the sixty city tour had laid an egg, the drive for Social Security reform died during the summer.

Lesson: Reforming a major entitlement program requires a serious discussion based on facts agreeable to both sides, and an open ear to compromises and concessions in order for an agreement to be reached. Pretty simple, yes?

Iraq has been the proverbial pair of concrete shoes for the Bush presidency. With each successive election or accomplishment of the new Iraqi government the U.S. Administration touts the good news as worthy of celebration. However each and every day there comes the bad news. A stampede on a bridge to a mosque killed in excess of 800 Iraqis in one day. Car bombs and ethnic assassinations and retaliations continue. Ground forces are encountering somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.3 KIAs a day. The institutions being formed and the government being birthed in Iraq is listing towards a fundamentalist state day by day. With that as an ongoing backdrop, the President continually reported a sunny optimism to the progress of Iraqis. Military experts called before Congress insisted the training of local forces was going well while conceding that the amount of fully independent divisions ready to fight on their own had DROPPED. All the while, billions upon billions of dollars is flung at the affair with painfully little oversight as to its distribution or value received. National Guard and Reserve forces are almost fully a third of active soldiers in the field. To say that there are a few problems in the country would be a severe understatement.

While many Democrats were muttering about how poorly things were going, they did not find a cohesive voice throughout most of the year. That was until John Murtha spoke directly to the public and to the President about what was going on. Representative Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal of American forces out of direct combat in Iraq caused a national dialogue on the pivotal issue of this decade. This lasted for about two weeks. The Republican leadership in the House thought it a great gift to make Democrats vote for (as they called it) "cutting and running" from the boondoggle that is Bush's war. By the end of December, most on the left were still vacillating on what tack to take when communicating with the general public on what course of action to pursue in Iraq. The moment passed and the Administration putting more sugary coats on the progress to date, the year ended with no foreseeable conclusion to the civil war beginning in Iraq.

Legislatively, there were any number of poor calculations and miscues. Life support for the brain-damaged, stem cell funding at the federal level, and a litany of legislation not passed all had times in the spotlight of the major media outlets. At the center of these bad calls was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. A doctor by training, and a politician by desire, the Senate Leader had his foibles this year in terms of political standing, and has yet to come to terms with a stock trade in his supposedly blind trust fund that was timed oh-so-correctly to coincide with the plummeting value of HCA. Yes that HCA, which his father and brother founded. The probe into this may come to fruition in full view of the 2006 election cycle. Some contend that his votes on the Senate floor reflect a keen interest on being kind to large insurance companies like HCA. Let's keep to the political shenanigans though.

Frist found himself at the center of a media storm over the removal of life-support to one Terri Schiavo. Medically listed as brain dead since the 1990s, her husband had gone to court with Terri's family to have the feeding tube removed and to let her pass away. On the surface it sounds ghoulish, but the feeding tube was the one item that was sustaining the body of a woman whose life shown no sign of returning whatsoever. Republicans in Congress were appalled that the state courts of Florida had agreed continually with the legal arguments of Terri's husband, and when the final challenge fell, there was nothing but an aggressive Congress to protect her. The good doctor Frist became involved, adding his professional diagnosis that there was brain function apparent in Terri and that she should continue on life-support. Unfortunately for him, the diagnosis came from selected video which, when taken out of context of her full condition (vegetative state twenty-four hours a day), made her appear as somewhat conscious. Cue the ill-fated overreach of the Republicans to prevent the removal of the feeding tube. Curiously, the White House and Congressional leadership stopped their efforts once it became apparent through polls of the American public that it intensely disliked such maneuvering.

Senator Bill Frist found a change of heart on the matter of using federal monies to aid in the study of embryonic stem cells. It was an unexpected shift in his pro-life credentials which he will need if he pushes along in a Presidential bid for 2008. While offering up what amounted to a sincere stance on the issue on the Senate floor, it added to a sense that there was a lack of control within the leadership position.

The Nuclear Option (as coined by Sen. Trent Lott) was another instance where Majority Leader Frist looked to be playing the part of leader while others went about solving the problem. When a handful of judges were reappointed by President Bush for seats on the bench, Frist was going to make sure that no Democrat could filibuster the nomination, so out goes the rules and in goes an approval of a lifetime judge based on a simple majority vote. When the so-called Gang of 14 broke with the leader and offered up a compromise, the appearance that Frist was in control gently wafted out the window.

Where to begin on the bills which he mangled. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act was going to be passed the way the Administration wanted come hell or high water. It was filibustered, and Frist couldn't get four Republican members from jumping ship to kill the filibuster. This resulted in the short extension passed by both houses. He along with Senator Stevens of Alaska could not get the full Senate to ever approve of tacked on legislation allowing for drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve. The last attempt was to include this in the Defense Authorization bill. This was quite similar to the Gun Manufacturers' Liability Law (note, it would have removed the liability part) that took a higher precedence over a Defense authorization bill, which would have included a ban on torture, quickly placed on the calendar before the August recess. And of course, John Bolton's failed nomination in the Senate was nothing to gloat about.

Not a very good year. The lesson here must be that the majority should locate and elect a competent leader who knows how to operate in a legislative body. Preferably one who is not running for President in two years.

Overall, 2005 was the year that the aura was finally scrubbed off the Administration. Secrecy, torture, war, and incompetence. Maybe 2006 will be better for us all.

Shock Means Nothing Anymore

One can hardly put to words the feeling that the United States Administration headed by President George W. Bush just does not care for antiquated things such as the Bill of Rights. Since September 12th, 2001, America has operated under rules completely held in secret. With the latest revelation that an executive order was repeatedly invoked authorizing the National Security Agegncy to conduct eavesdropping activities on citizens without any oversight, it must be determined that there is no out-of-bounds any more.

The executive branch has the right (they say) to investigate, review, and decide the merits of wiretapping United States citizens without the subject's knowledge, or any other branch of government interfering with the investigation. No oversight. No FISA to be burdened with. And with any luck, no newspaper will move ahead with the story that this situation actually exists.

Why does this shock anyone? Will the next revelation surprise the public? Veiled corporate councils that conceive energy policies, hidden interrogation centers, word-bending on torture, an entire war brought about courtesy of intelligence hand-picked to deceive? To put this melodramatically, it would take the President himself knocking over a liquor store caught on the six o'clock news to shock the public at this stage.

There is no War on Terror. Just as there was no "war" on poverty, or illiteracy, or drugs, or crime. The term is not applicable to a tactic used by the fanatics familiar with the tool. War is reserved to a declaration by Congress against a foreign state. There is no declaration of war on Iraq, just an open-ended call to the President to do what he deems fit. What the U.S. faces is a very small group of radicals that wishes to avenge the perceived wrongs (without taking issue as to the rightness or wrongness of these perceptions) done to them by attacking American interests at home and abroad. They do not call any one place home, and will be with us for as long as the long arm of American foreign policy interferes with other countries' affairs.

The rationale the President used in his latest radio address is that he can do this because the United States is at war. How long then can he continue to conduct this warrantless search of citizens? Whenever the war on terror is over. Notice an open-endedness to that approach?

President Bush suggested that he has done all of the greater good of protecting the American people. Something to review for the moment then - what does the oath that President's take before being sworn in as the nation's leader state?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And what of the Fourth Amendment in said Constitution?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This government has been a grand experiment. Can a republic be built upon democratic ideals and survive humans? Each administration should have enough respect to leave the system as good or better than when they found it. A farmer will tell you that you must care for the land and treat it right if not for good crops this year, but a good harvest next year and for the next decade. Instead, the last century has shown a creep towards concentration of power. Whether it was a Roosevelt (both), a Reagan, a Johnson, or a Clinton, the American public has grown compliant to the shift. That march towards power is hurting the experiment's results each and every year.

Placing the brakes on that push towards absolutism is reserving the rights of the citizens to the citizens, and not solely to the executive/legislative/judiciary branches of government. Maybe this is why so many are up in arms about the notion that a President can do what she or he sees fit when it comes to our rights in the name of security.

There has to be outrage and shock at this, even if it seems hard to muster.

When Can You Torture?

What type of hypothetical situation warrants torture? What type of situation must one encounter before the asphyxiation begins, and the organ failure ensues?

Is there a bomb? Is it a very large bomb? Is it ready to go off, and is said bomb placed in New York City or Los Angeles?

Is there a detainee who knows everything about the plan, but just isn't talking? Is time running short and there are hundreds of thousands of lives at stake? Will the knowledge that this person holds result in a mushroom cloud unless she or he talks?

All of these postulates are put forward as an excuse to allow torture. In a way it relies on a utilitarian approach to assessing the situation: Will the threat and application of pain to one person bring about safety and security for a large number of people? With one bad thing, many can be happy - that is the premise.

Charles Krauthammer has made the following case:

...there is the terrorist with information. Here the issue of torture gets complicated and the easy pieties don't so easily apply. Let's take the textbook case. Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking.

Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?

It is a wonderful scenario. There can be no doubt that one must choose to torture, and not waste a moment applying the car battery to the detainee's chest. Torture first, then ask polite questions later.

This hypothetical is ludicrous.

The premise presumes that the person being held is indeed the bomber. What if they are not? What if the bomber's name is Jason Smith, and the authorities picked up Jayson Smith? An hour torturing the wrong actor in the scenario and the authorities are still no closer to locating the device, and in addition they have inflicted harm and pain on the person who during his torment may just name some random place in an effort to stop the torture being given.

So getting the right suspect in the first place is critical to the hypothesis. Has the U.S. ever gotten this point wrong in the past? Yes, we have botched it in the past. There is no reason to believe that from here to infinity, the U.S. will only get the right people to torture in the future.

Of course the hypothetical must disallow such conjectures. It's purpose is to commit the person answering the question to say, "yes, I'd torture the person if it would save millions of people." An alternative such as evacuating the city as quickly as possible isn't a solution, and it cannot be offered on purpose. It would be a reasonable alternative as opposed to depending on torture to produce some evidence that will lead to the defusion of the bomb.

Krauthammer conveniently leaves out that torture produces little if any intelligence that can be used. Most humans who have suffered through torture (a certain Senator in the United States Senate comes to mind) will devulge the information that they think the interrogators want to hear. And in the case of the above hypothetical, wouldn't we naturally presume that the actual terrorist detainee would plant any number of false places in the heads of those doing the torture to prevent them from finding the pending nuclear explosion? Uptown -- the Lower East Side -- Wall Street -- the Brooklyn Bridge.

There are so many holes to poke in the argument, it is a wonder that it was brought up in a serious manner. By the logic of the argument that saving many at the expense of one is admirable, we should be able to apply the fallacy to other instances. Move away from a nuclear bomb, and make it C4 explosive. It is in a bag and is placed somewhere on the subway in NYC. It will do a lot of damage and quite possibly kill two dozen people unfortunate to be near it when it detonates. Can torture be applied to the bomb planter? What about an armed bank heist that might result in the death of one or two innocent civilians?

If it is the quantity of life lost, and not the actual act of torturing a suspect that is the concern, then there must be a limit that one can agree on. It is just difficult to establish if that limit is one life, 20 lives, possibly one thousand. A million lives seems to be the accepted amount, but 500,000 lives should be high up the list as well.

It would be more telling (and actually boost the case for those that advocate torture) if there was some definitive case for the ticking time bomb scenario. None have occurred that are noted in any of these arguments. We only learn of the hypothetical. There may be a reason for this: torture has never worked out so neatly as to stop something from happening, much less garner information that is at all usable. Of the plots that have been thwarted, torture had nothing to do with it. Richard Reid just wan't bright enough to detonate his shoes (thanfully). The millenium bomber just was too gosh darn nervous to keep his story straight at the border. Without evidence that getting physical with a suspect grants the interrogator a treasure trove of information, one really goes out on a spindly limb with torture.

It is quite probable that any interrogation technique will not yield any information that can be used. However, it is a certainty that the one technique that we would not wish to be used on any Americans is that of torture. What's not good for us should be just as unacceptable for others.

Mr. Krauthammer argues that the hypothetical is reason enough to establish his conclusion that there must always be room for an exception to torture a person. Fine. Don't complain then when an American pilot or soldier is shown being tortured on camera. You have to have a certain type of stomach to bear witness to such things when you advocate for torture, don't you?

What The Power Of Democracy Can Do

A tip of the hat yet again to Professor Juan Cole for spotting the intelligence.

Harold Pinter takes a stab at what is the matter with the United States policy with respect to the rest of the world's governments.

It makes for a good read, though his comments about Iraq and American foreign policy do not begin until about a third of the way through the speech.

A point that was of particular insight starts when he presents this thesis:

"Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked."

Remember the old quote of who writes the history books? Follow from there, and recall that the United States "won" the Cold War. One might think that it will be some time before Americans understand what really happened throughout the past six decades at the behest of our leaders.

Why President Bush Lost The Battle

Every so often, the writer Gary North will add some insight into the debate that might otherwise go unnoticed. His viewpoint is that of a Libertarian and most of his arguments are made quite persuasively. Recently he published an article entitled, "Tactics, Not Strategy, in the Antiwar Movement". This entry is no different.

The general premise is that when Presidents of the past century waged war, there was complicity by those in power to accept the terms of the conflict. Whether it was for political (Wilsonian principles of just involvement) or financial (Lockheed Martin, GE, etc.), the power centers would see some tangible benefit for following. The public would be last to know, but dutifully told that this was the best course of action possible.

North sees the internet and particularly the world wide web as the great equalizer that puts a tremendous strain on the old power structures of the 20th century. His shorthand phrase for the transition from the industrial to the technical is "the transition from atoms to electrons." The state can't deploy the National Guard to stop people from thinking and writing about their beliefs. The control has shifted.

In the article linked above, Gary North asks three questions of the antiwar movement, and then tries his best to answer them:

The tactical question today is this: What can critics do to persuade the voters that (1) this war is a colossal mistake, (2) our troops' continued presence in the Middle East is an equally colossal mistake, and (3) we must get out and stay out?

Here are my answers.

First, critics can act just as termites act. They can keep chewing on the structure. This undermines its legitimacy, and legitimacy means everything. Without it, voluntary cooperation ceases. Public support is withdrawn, voter by voter. This is now happening to the Bush Administration.

Second, critics with an anti-empire vision of the Middle East can capitalize on the failed war in Iraq as an example of the cost of empire in that region. They can use Iraq as an ideological domino. "You want more Iraqs? Just stay the Establishment's course." Putting this in one slogan: "Bring the troops home by Christmas." This will reinforce that other slogan: "Get the troops out by Ramadan."

Third, non-interventionists must produce comprehensive historical works that show that Iraq is merely a representative example of the American Empire in general. They must make it clear that it really is an empire, and that empires are not only doomed throughout history, they are doomed for a reason: they rest on coercion.

Step three will be very expensive. Were it not for the falling costs of communication, this program would not be plausible. It will not be easy. There is no non-interventionist equivalent of Ideals and Self-Interest in American Foreign Relations. That book must be written. It must show that George Washington's recommendation in his Farewell Address is the only viable solution, both ideally and pragmatically, to Dwight Eisenhower's warning in his Farewell Address.

I believe that book was already written in North's third point, and it was completed by Ivan Eland in "The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed". Indeed, Eland's case is that the United States of America began its empire with its capture of Cuba and the Phillipines just before the turn of the 20th century and the country has not abated since.

President Bush is only the latest to not understand this history. Invasion and conquest even for what on paper sounds like a lofty ideal only brings about wreckage for both actors. It seems that the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq circa 2003 were quite apt. No one understood though how fast the turn against the war would occur given the power of ideas and their rapid transmission via the web.

The soldiers and marines did the job that they were given quite well - invade a foreign country and defeat the defenses of that nation. They don't have a choice in the matter. The leaders of the U.S. over the past five years are the ones who failed their nation, and it will be pinned to their biographies the footnote, "they lost the war."