Bourgeois Deviant

From the National Defense University by Joseph Collins, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations in the Pentagon, April 2008:

Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths--mostly at the hands of other Iraqis--may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States now spends over $10 billion per month on the war, and that the total, direct U.S. costs from March 2003 to July 2007 have exceeded $450 billion, all of which has been covered by deficit spending. No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on Service personnel and materiel.

The war's political impact also has been great. Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen.2 Our status as a moral leader has been damaged by the war, the subsequent occupation of a Muslim nation, and various issues concerning the treatment of detainees. At the same time, operations in Iraq have had a negative impact on all other efforts in the war on terror, which must bow to the priority of Iraq when it comes to manpower, materiel, and the attention of decisionmakers. Our Armed Forces-- especially the Army and Marine Corps--have been severely strained by the war in Iraq. Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.

As this case study is being written, despite impressive progress in security during the surge, the outcome of the war is in doubt. Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after the rapid withdrawal of that army.... No one has calculated the psychopolitical impact of a perceived defeat on the U.S. reputation for power or the future of the overall war on terror. For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a "must win," but for many others, despite the obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a "can't win."

Via TPM. Full document: (PDF).

Update: And Bumpa Deviant responds: "and all of that was predicted by people in the know before we started the war...and it was ignored by those who wanted to start the war regardless of the facts."

Labels: Iran, Iraq, National Defense University, Talking Points Memo, War on Terror

The Bush Administration lied nine-hundred and thirty-five times regarding Iraq leading up to and during the war.
When questioned, I am sure it will depend on what their meaining of "is" is. Perhaps they "don't recall" or "can't recollect" all of them. It doesn't matter. They've done damage and need to, in the parlance GWB should appreciate, atone for their sins. Impeach the bastards.

(Source: TPM)

Search for your favorite lie here.

Labels: Bush Administration, Center for Public Integrity, Impeachment, Iraq

A former neighbor I grew up with is a professional golf caddy. He works with a semi-well-known pro on the PGA Tour. This pro he caddies for, like any PGA golfer, is very good at the game. However, the guy has yet to win a major. At least that is true to the best of my knowledge to date. When asked what holds this pro back from clinching a major or sustaining a major winning record, he responded that the guy doesn’t take his medicine.

I am not a golfer. I did grow up with it and many in my family adore the sport. If you haven’t a clue what this medicinal reference means, simply put, if you end up in a bad spot on (or off, rather) the fairway and are left with no direct shot towards the green, you have two choices. Either you take a risky shot relying on your skill to dig your way out of a bad situation, or you take a short shot to improve your approach to the green. The latter is the conservative choice and known as “taking your medicine.” It adds a shot to your score, but insures against further catastrophe.

Many pros will rely on their experience and skill to get them out of trouble. This particular pro is among them and, in the estimation of his colleague, makes the more aggressive, poorer choice that ultimately prevents his ascension into the upper tiers of PGA success.

As a child, my Sunday mornings were for golf with Dad. Now, they are for listening to the Sunday morning talk shows. Yesterday, these made me think of the golf expression in relation to last week’s developments with the war in Iraq. It is obvious there is strong disagreement over how things are going with our nation’s efforts in the region. To my mind, all sides of the issue have kernels of truth to them. General David Petraeus gave testimony this week basically stating that while the United States’ efforts in Iraq area failing to meet the benchmarks set by our government, progress is being made and success is being achieved. Pundits and politicians can haggle exhaustively over the actual definitions of progress, success, and if the goal posts have been moved so as to give the appearance of a rosier picture for political purposes. No matter what your position, few would argue that our position is not good and could better.

Taking your medicine involves changing your perspective on your goal. It forces taking a stroke or a loss towards a better score to do, but if you take it, you’re much less likely to suffer another pitfall and larger losses. This analogy is perfect for our plight in Iraq. No one wants to lose this war. No one wants to say that our military failed. But, we have to ask the question: In order to win the *ahem* War on Terror, should we retreat, regroup and rethink our strategy in how we’ve handled our affairs thus far? It could be just the thing to do our body politic good.

No one is saying that the service men and women of the United States military have not performed well. And those that want to stay surely wish to do so because they wish to see the job to its finish. That is admirable and virtuous and what any nation would hope for in its citizens in uniform. However, it makes no sense to continue on this path if it is not the best, most effective rout to win the larger *ahem* conflict.

Nor do I advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water. We did break Iraq and it is primarily our obligation to fix it. Rather, it is our national penance. We let ourselves be convinced of a situation that never existed and, in the spirit of vengeance struck out against an obvious but incorrect target in Iraq. We need to refocus our efforts. Winning for the sake of winning isn’t enough here. Democracy is laudable but if it isn’t wholly embraced by a citizenry, as is apparent in Iraq, it is wasted blood and treasure. Simply, do what it takes to involve the international community, bolster the areas of the country that are “secure” and conduct our operations exclusively from there. This is too simple and therefore an impossibility, but so is victory and the establishment of a lasting democracy in Iraq.

So, chip out from the rock we are under (Iraq), get a better lie so we can see where we need to go (back to Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan), how far off our goal really is and what it will take to get there instead just hacking away pointlessly (Bush’s efforts), determined to get that one great shot off that will get us where we want to go (a “free and democratic” Iraq) even though we can’t see it.

Labels: Afghanistan, Bush Administration, Golf, Iraq, Pakistan, U.S. Military

From yesterday's NYT. Courtesy of TPM.

Labels: fog of war, Iraq, New York Times, Politics, Talking Points Memo, U.S. Military

Courtesy of MoveOn.

This should be posted everywhere and played daily to remind people how wrong our country's state of affairs is and who is responsible for them. At the very least, two things are abundantly clear. The situation then is as it was when we began this Iraq War, and it was clearly the wrong thing to do for more reasons than I or the past Mr. Cheney can list. It is also evidence of the hypocrisy and hubris of those in power. This war was not in our national interest and only in the interest of a handful of willfully delusional idealistic plutocrats with no personal blood or treasure to risk.

Mr. Cheney's words then reinforce my belief now that both he and Mr. Bush should be impeached. This is not to say they should be prosecuted for their duplicity, hubris and reckless endangerment our nation. These two men and the sycophants around them have destabilized the balance of power in the United States Government. In the eyes of some, they have come as close to engineering an imperial presidency as we may (hopefully) ever see. It is certainly more so this case and done with less cause than the Lincoln administration, which had cause aplenty.

Again, it is not for ridding us of these two men that we should impeach, however appealing that may be. It is for what they have done to the executive branch. This is a reason that many conservatives can and should support impeachment. Here's why: What Bush and Cheney have done is to forge an entire new set of powers for the executive branch that, if not prosecuted before the end of their term will, in effect, stand as a consent by the Congress and legal precedent as a tool set for the next executive to inherit the office. So, all you so called conservatives out there and your like, if things continue to go the way they are in the '08 Presidential race, a Democrat will be able to do all the things Bush and Cheney have done and little to nothing can be done to stop them. Once precedent is established, it is extremely difficult to overturn. And you won't have the lack of intestinal fortitude and general flaccidity of your party to blame when you cry foul.

Power is the reason for everything in this argument for impeaching Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. For or against, power and the ability to wield it or keep it in check as the framers of the Constitution wished it is what is at stake. Some days ago, Mr. Edwards was answering questions from the public and impeachment came up. He stated he was against it because of what it did to the national government overall during the Clinton administration. Basically he said it rendered our government ineffective by grinding it to a halt as it concentrated on the proceeding. That is a perfectly good and strong argument when one is arguing against impeaching the chief executive over concealing a marital infidelity that had little to no bearing on the nation aside from tabloid titillation and shallow moral pandering for political gain.

The stakes are higher now. The principles and precedents on which our nation has been built have been trampled upon and that needs to be addressed and remedied. You have to be naive or willfully blind to think that any candidate for president isn't mindful of how the office has changed over the last six years and the powers they could potentially inherit. It is sheer folly to think that any politician would volunteer to give up such power despite how virtuous they might profess to be.

So conservatives, ask yourself if you want a Democrat to be able to do all the things Mr. Bush and his cabal have done. Progressives should be asking if they truly want to right the wrongs of the last two terms. Also, if you were for impeaching Mr. Clinton over wrongly concealing a private sexual transgression, you should be equally, if not more so in favor of impeaching Mr. Bush for putting our country in such peril, on so many levels, in such a deliberate and calculated fashion. If you disagree with the latter, you are, in this blogger's opinion, in the avant-garde in leading the charge that is the United States' hastening decline as a world power and a great, "moral" nation.

Labels: Bush, checks and balances, Cheney, Clinton Administration, Constitution, Impeachment, Iraq, John Edwards, MoveOn.org, presidential powers

© BDeviant 2006

Labels: chalk, CNN, Iraq, News, War

A friend of the family is a Dept. of State diplomatic corps veteran and specializes in Middle East issues. Edward W. "Skip" Gnehm, Jr. was the guy that the U.S. air lifted into the American Embassy in Kuwait during the first Gulf War to sort stuff out there immediately post invasion. He knows his stuff and just recently gave a lecture on the "neighborhood" surrounding Iraq. Daddy Deviant attended the lecture and was kind enough to get a copy from Skip to pass on to me. It is worth the read and worth the time spent to share it with you here. Enjoy.

(Skip, should you feel this proprietary and want me to yank it, just say so and it will be done and w/ my apologies.)

SHAPIRO LECTURE

February 23, 2006

ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

IRAQ: A VIEW FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Where a man stands determines what he sees. What he sees may at that moment seem quite clear; but what is seen is immediately processed by a mind developed over time and space --- by history, by culture, and by experience. Already two people standing in the same place “see” different things. And looming behind the seen is the “unseen” that neither the one, the other, or the many can but imagine.

I recently returned from a trip to the Middle East. Not a conversation took place that did not include mention of Iraq. Some people were philosophical and tempered; others were emotional and angry. All were opinionated. These encounters reminded me that we in America, with our focus on what is most important to us, often fail to consider how other people see things. We overlook these perspectives at our peril. For they certainly influence how the peoples of the region interpret our actions and also how they determine their own actions. The peoples who live in the Middle East are focused on Iraq, not only as a political issue with major consequences on the future of the region, but as an issue with major import on their personal lives, their families, and their way of life.

Tonight I would like to focus on Iraq --- but examine Iraq through the eyes of those who live in the neighborhood --- from Turkey in the north; Iran to the east; Kuwait, the Gulf States, and Saudi Arabia to the south; and finally Jordan and Syria on the western flank. Each of these states and the peoples who live in them have a vital stake in the outcome of events in Iraq. Each of them has historical experiences and cultural ties that influence how they interpret developments in Iraq and how they determine whether those developments are good or bad.

Turkey

Turkey looks down from the north --- from the high mountains of eastern Turkey across the highlands of the Kurdish lands out across the flat plains between the two great rivers --- the Tigris and the Euphrates. I could tell you that Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire and that these lands between the two rivers were a part of that empire for more than 500 years. I could mention the Turkomen minority in Iraq that Turkey has always seen as under its special care. I could tell you that Turkey sees a neighboring country important for trade and commerce. And validly, I could describe the importance of a pipeline that crosses Turkey from the northern Iraqi oil fields to the Mediterranean. All would be true; but in fact the prism through which Turks view Iraq is contained in one word --- Kurds. Whether true or false, Turkey sees every event or development in Iraq as in some way related to the Kurdish issue.

What lies behind this myopic view of Iraq? How about several hundred years of Kurdish aspiration for their own independent state!

Let me take you through a brief look at the Kurdish issue. The Kurds are ethnically different from the Turks, the Arabs and the Persians. They trace their presence in the region in the thousands of years. There are an estimated 36.2 million Kurds living in a region the size of California and New York combined. The Kurdish areas straddle the boundaries of several states with the largest Kurdish populations in Turkey (28% of Turkey’s population), Iran (12.6%) and Iraq (24%). The largest portion of Kurdish inhabited territory is in Turkey (43%) followed by Iran (31%), Iraq (18%), Syria (6%) and the former Soviet Union (2%). Present day country borders were drawn in Europe by Europeans following the end of WWI as they carved up the Ottoman Empire. The Kurds, who had been fighting the Turks for centuries, felt betrayed when they were not given their own state. They have continued to fight governments in the region to various extents and at different times. Kurdish movements have at times been violent and some have the approbation of a terrorist organization. Turkey and its citizens continue to this very day to be targets of some Kurdish groups.

The central issue for Turkey is not terrorism, however, but Kurdish desire for an independent state that would include large portions of Turkey (and its Kurdish inhabitants). Turkey is not about to acquiesce in such a development and takes whatever actions that are necessary to contain Kurdish aspirations and thwart any pressure on Turkish territory. Hence, Turkey watches every development in the political landscape in Iraq as Iraqis move toward creating a new state. For obvious reasons Turkey supports a unified Iraqi state with meaningful guarantees of minority rights. Turkey is wary of actions that give the Kurds more autonomy such as the moves toward federalism and increased local powers. They are anxious over Kurdish assertion of authority over the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk which would give the Kurds control of the northern oil fields and thus the economic wherewithal to sustain independence. While Kurdish parties active in Iraqi politics may at this point in time eschew independence, the Turks are certain that independence remains the ultimate objective.


Iran

Iran looks westward toward Iraq from the heights of the Zagros Mountains out across the same plains between the two rivers as does Turkey. Even as the major storms driving wind, sand and snow come from these plains so did the armies that destroyed the Persian empires and ravaged their culture. On those plains are the two most holy sites in Shia Islam and the single largest Shia population outside Iran with the potential of challenging Iran’s political and religious influence.

This 900 mile border has been a fault line between empires and cultures for more two thousand years! This mountain range marked the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire where it was in a perpetual state of war with the Persians. The Byzantine Empire inherited the same skirmish line. Wars continued between Arab Moslem and Persian Moslem empires. In modern times and vividly in the minds of both Iraqis and Iranians alive today was the bloody war fought between the two states from 1980-88. Hundreds of thousands died in trench warfare reminiscent of WWI. Gas was used both against each other and by the Iraqis against their Kurdish population. Important to note is the overwhelming Arab world support for Iraq during that war. The Arab world has long viewed Iraq as a bulwark against the Persians (but I will talk more about this later).

One might expect that, after Persia became Moslem in the late 7th century, these mountains would no longer represent a line of conflict; but that fails to comprehend the ethnic fault line that these mountains also delineate. Iranians are ethnically Persian --- not Arabs. The people of Iran harken back to an imperial Persian heritage. Their sense of Persian history and culture is deep and defines them uniquely from their Arab neighbors. I was struck by a recent story in the Washington Post. The journalist was interviewing Iranian workers at Persepolis, the ancient capital of the Persian Empire, about Iran’s nuclear program. The worker swept his hand around him pointing to the ruins and observed that with such an ancient culture we certainly should have a nuclear capability!

Time does not permit my going extensively into the importance of this cultural divide; but it is important to understand that inherent in many of the issues we are facing today in the Gulf region and in Iraq is the Persian view of themselves as a rich and ancient culture --- superior in genius and intellect to the Arabs who, they say, only recently came out of the desert. One can readily imagine how Arabs react. Iran is a legitimate power with a security role in the region. I am not validating this self image --- only setting it forth as an important point to be understood as one tries to discern how people today --- Iranians and Arabs --- see each other.

Then enter the religious cleavage between Sunni and Shia. Iran from 1501 has been Shia while most of the Arab world is Sunni or orthodox. What does this mean? How does that impact on Iranian views of Iraq today? Facts speak starkly. Southern Iraq --- though ethnically Arab --- is Shia in religious faith. Even more importantly the most holy sites of Shia Islam are in southern Iraq at Najaf and Karbala.


The origin of Shi’ism goes back to the first years after the Prophet Mohammed. The issue centered essentially on who should succeed the Prophet as leader of the community of the faithful. Without delving too far into history, the Shia rejected the political legitimacy of the caliphs in Damascus and followed the lead of imams who were direct descendents of the Prophet. The vast numbers of Moslems viewed the Shia religion as a division of the faith and the community, both of which are viewed as deviations from the true religion and unacceptable in the Islamic community. Just as Shia refused to accept the established political structure in the Islamic state after the first caliphs, the majority population rejected the Shia. The Wahabbi fundamentalist movement in Saudi Arabia takes this rejection to an extreme --- calling Shia apostates to Islam. In other words they see the Shia as worse than an infidel (one who never believed in Islam). In the violence in Iraq today we hear Wahabbi fighters saying that it is not only justifiable but their duty to kill the apostate Shia.

Bring this back to Iran’s view of Iraq, it is important to understand that Iran, as the largest (and until now) the only Shia state, sees itself as having a special relationship with the Shia in southern Iraq. Certainly Iran has more than a keen interest in access to and influence over the two holy Shia shrines in Najaf and Karbala.

How does all this come together for Iran as it looks westward toward Iraq? Iran fears a strong unified Iraq and it fears an Iraq in chaos. Devising a successful policy that wants neither strength nor chaos is a formidable challenge. Iran will oppose a strong central government that might reconstitute a strong military establishment. They are for a unified Iraq --- if the Shia are in the majority, of course, and in significant control. It means an Iranian influence over that Shia majority and/or Iranian influence with other factions such as the Kurds. Further and importantly, Iran does not want to see a strong clerical regime in Iraq that could rival the current theocracy in Iran.

And what about the Kurds from the Iranian point of view? As with Turkey, Iran has a sizable Kurdish minority (7%) and, therefore, opposes the establishment of an independent Kurdish state – a state that would certainly expect to annex parts of Iranian territory. It is, therefore, in Iran’s interest that the Kurds have sufficient influence in a new Iraq to want to remain within it but not self sufficiency that leads to independence.

Lastly, but by no means the least important of Iran’s focus in Iraq, is the Iranian concern about the U.S. presence and what that might mean over the long term. This factor goes far beyond Iraq to the most central of all Iranian security concerns --- U.S. policy toward Iran. Clearly, Iranians fear U.S. encirclement --- a U.S. presence --- largely military --- on its four fronts: air and ground forces in Afghanistan to the east, the U.S. Navy to the south and southwest, U.S. army, air force and marines in Iraq, Qatar and Kuwait, and U.S. bases in central Asia. Ultimately, Iran wants a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and the formation of an Iraqi government that is pro-Iranian, not pro-American.

Kuwait and the Gulf:

When Kuwaitis look north toward Iraq, they see only a flat plain --- a desert of blowing sand --- their vision limited only by the earth’s curve; but their memories obsessed by the sounds and sights of the Iraqi army that came south.

Kuwait is unique among all the nations in the region. Kuwait experienced an Iraqi invasion and occupation --- never to be forgotten. Kuwaitis remain ecstatic that Saddam Hussein is out. They too fear an overly strong Iraq or an Iraq torn by civil strife; but their view of the best outcome is not that of Iran. The Kuwaitis want to see a unified Iraqi state strong enough to resist Iranian hegemony. They want a stable state that becomes once again a major trading partner. They want a state that gives the Sunni population a significant role in government --- while they accept that the Shia are in the majority. They want a central authority that will recognize the border with Kuwait as defined by UN Security Council resolutions.

How can there be such an Iraq given Iran’s seemingly dominant position among Shia in the south? The Kuwaitis believe that in the end the Arabism of the Shia in Iraq will be more important than the Shia religious ties with Iran. They point out how the Iraqi army was largely Shia and yet fought against Iran in the Iraq-Iran War. Not all Kuwaitis agree. Many believe the Iranian influence is so far imbedded in southern Iraq that it cannot be displaced. In private conversations many Kuwaitis spoke of an Iranian threat to all the smaller Gulf States --- concern that Iran would use the Shia populations in these states to undermine existing authorities. I was particularly astonished to hear them express concern about their own Shia minority which, in the opinion of virtually all observers, is the best integrated Shia community in the Gulf. Clearly I was hearing concern about Iran and not Iraq.

Saudi Arabia

Saudis facing north to Iraq look across the same vast desert plain as do the Kuwaitis. The Saudi-Iraqi relationship has historically been mixed --- one might even say, episodic. One need only recall the intense rivalry when Iraq was a Hashemite Kingdom in contrast to total Saudi support during the Iraq-Iran War when Iraq was seen as the bulwark against Iran.

A single geographic fact, an issue of religion, and a powerful neighbor dominate the Saudi mindset when they think of Iraq today. The geographic issue is a virtually open border that runs 500 miles across the desert from Kuwait to Jordan. It is a national security concern in the best of times. With the instability and disorder in Iraq today, it is a nightmare. If Saudi Arabia could have one thing in Iraq today, it would be stability --- an end to the chaos, bombing and killing that marks everyday news from Iraq. Why?

As one Saudi official said, “Iraq is a magnet for terrorists.” It is a breeding ground for operatives to develop terrorist skills. It is a source of sophisticated weapons available for the pick up. Saudi Arabia fears the cross border movements of terrorists and arms; but the most serious is the ability of domestic Saudi terrorists to enter the country from Iraq. The Saudi Government sees such easy movement as a direct threat to internal stability in the Kingdom as well as the survival of the Kingdom as it is structured today.

The religious issue in the Saudi mindset is the Shia political dominance in Iraq. Their concern has several facets. Certainly one is the religious antagonism between the ultra conservative Wahabbi sect and Shi’ism. Additionally, the Saudis fear (as do other Gulf Arabs) that the Shias’, newly-obtained, political power in Iraq will embolden, if not subvert, their own Shia population. It just so happens that Saudi Arabia’s Shia population is the majority in the Kingdom’s oil-rich eastern province. Thirdly, the Saudis are concerned (though they rarely voice this concern openly) that Shia Iraq will be a competitor for leadership within Islam. Previously, the Saudi role as “custodian” of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina gave them an unrivaled position within Islam. Shia in Iraq, who now control the two holiest sites of Shia Islam for the first time in history, have a basis for claiming their own leadership role. Finally, and most profoundly, this potential competition becomes an acute issue of power and prestige if Iran is seen as having the “custodianship” of the two mosques in Najaf and Karbala.

Iran is precisely that powerful neighbor that is the third issue that occupies the Saudi mindset when they think of Iraq. Saudi Arabia is concerned about the dominant influence that they see Iran achieving in Iraq. Foreign Minister Saud al-Feisal was blunt in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations (September 2005) that “we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason.” The Saudis have ample reason to be concerned. Iran historically has been an assertive power. The Shah in his time claimed the role of a hegemonic power in the Gulf and Iran under Khomenei tried to export its revolution to other states in the region, specifically calling for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy.

Thus the Saudi and the Arab Gulf view of Iraq is very much centered on how the new Iraq figures in their security concern over Iran. Will the Iranian influence in Iraq be dominant? Is Iraq lost forever as a bulwark or check against Iran? Will the U.S. remain steady on course as a protector? The Gulf Arabs are savvy. They understand that the U.S. experiences in Iraq will have an important impact on future U.S. decisions about our continued presence in the Gulf. Officially and in actuality, the senior officials and governments in the Gulf support the U.S. in Iraq and hope that the U.S. can achieve much of its stated goals. As the Saudi Foreign Minister said, they want “a stable unified Iraq at peace with itself and in harmony with its neighbors.” They want a government that is inclusive (of the Sunni population, of course). They want a government that is not dominated by Iran. In short they are hoping for an Iraqi Government that truly has Iraq’s interests at the fore.

Jordan and the Western Front

Jordan looks into a rising sun when they look in the direction of Baghdad and, as is true of the sun in the Middle East, its morning rays that bring warmth are followed by a scorching sun that burns! Jordan has had a unique relationship with Iraq over the past twenty years. All will recall that Jordan took a pro-Iraqi stance during the first Gulf War. That stance was but one manifestation of a relationship that was strategically important to Jordan. Jordan obtained virtually all of its crude oil needs from Iraq at concessional rates. A complex trading relationship gave Jordanian firms advantages in the Iraqi market. Much transit trade flowed through the Jordanian port of Aqaba. All these factors continue to be important for Jordan.

The relationship today is good but not without problems. Overall Jordan, led by King Abdullah, wants to see a unified and domestically peaceful Iraq. Stability is critical for trade and development --- and for the production of oil; but instability in Iraq also spills over into Jordan. The terrorist attacks on three hotels in Amman late last year dramatize this threat. The Jordanians expect this threat to continue as long as the situation in Iraq remains as it is.

Additionally on the problem side of the equation is precisely the close relationship that Jordan had with Saddam Hussein’s regime. Those who now govern Iraq (and many Iraqi citizens) say openly that King Hussein’s support for Saddam helped prolong his regime and, consequently, their suffering. In short they blame Jordan. My Jordanian friends are acutely aware of this hostility and are anxious over how Iraq may deal with Jordan in the future.

Secondly, the Jordanians are deeply concerned about Iranian influence in the new Iraq. Jordan has not had the best of relations with Iran since the fall of the Shah. They generally oppose the theocracy of the Iranian government and its initial efforts to export its revolution. They have spoken openly about the danger of a Shia arc in the region --- referring to Shia populations in Lebanon, the Allouite dominated government in Damascus, Iran itself and now Iraq. The King has tried to use his influence with the Sunni tribes in Iraq and with the authorities in Baghdad to broker compromises or arrangements that would bring the Sunnis into the political process in a meaningful way.

Let me briefly mention Syria and focus strictly on its policy toward Iraq. Through much of the Asad presidency there was nothing but division and hostility between Damascus and Baghdad. It was partly rivalries between two wings of the Baath Party. It was certainly due to competition for regional influence between two important states in the region and two strong leaders. It had just a little to do with Saddam’s effort to destabilize Syria! After Bashar became President of Syria and Saddam’s efforts to thwart sanctions began to bear more than a little fruit, the two governments began cooperating in what can only be described as “terms that met both their desires.” Oil began to flow through the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline, not all of which reached markets in Europe! Trade (and thus transit fees) grew. There was certainly evidence that some arms were moving to Iraq through Syrian ports.

When the U.S. decided to move militarily against Saddam, officials in Damascus saw how this would destroy a very lucrative arrangement. This point, however, cannot entirely explain Syrian policy toward Iraq. An important factor remains the ideology of the Baath Party in Syria in its traditional opposition to outside (western) interference in Arab affairs. I, for one, believe as well that Syria’s policy was a result of failure by several influential Syrian officials to understand just how serious the U.S. was in its decision to remove Saddam Hussein from office. I personally believe that President Asad’s often mentioned pragmatic streak would have been more dominant had he still been alive.

Syria wants a unified Iraqi state but without U.S. influence. In fact it shares the Iranian desire to see U.S. forces leave Iraq --- seeing them as a threat to the Syrian regime. Being closely allied with Iran, Syria is not, therefore, concerned with Iranian influence. On the other hand the majority Sunni population in Syria may. Syrian policy toward Iraq will always be heavily calculated against the situation to the west with Israel and Lebanon. Those theaters are paramount --- as is the Syrian calculation of possible U.S. actions against Syria. I expect Syria will continue to oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq but will be careful not to antagonize the U.S. in Iraq in a way that provokes direct U.S. action against the regime.

Conclusions:

What then do these observations mean for the United States and Iraq?

Foremost, I would argue that it gives us an interesting playing field on which we can have some influence in achieving our desired objectives. Virtually all Iraq‘s neighbors favor a unified Iraqi state, as we do, though their reasons for such a position may vary.

Secondly, all of the neighbors, perhaps with the exception of Syria, would like to see more stability in Iraq, again perhaps for different motives. Here the issue is complicated by the subtleties of Iranian policy, on the one hand, and uncontrolled Wahabbi activity, on the other. The Iranians are determined to see a strong Shia influence in the new Iraq and support the use of militia to both assert authority and to intimidate those opposed, including Sunnis and secular Shia. More specifically, they support rival Shia militia to insure that no one group can dominate and thus undercut Iranian influence. As to the Wahabbis, the Government of Saudi Arabia has only a limited ability to stop the movement of Wahabbi religious fighters from going to Iraq where they support the Sunnis and target both coalition (read “foreign forces”) and Shia. The Saudi Government, so desirous of stability in Iraq, wishes to do so and should be worked with as an ally in confronting this group.

Finally, while Iranian influence, especially among Shia in southern Iraq, is significant and I would say increasing, the Iranians will have a serious problem maintaining their position and the situation may begin to shift sooner than you think. Iran cannot succeed over time in restraining Arab Iraqi Shia from asserting their interests. Also there will be many interests that will not converge with those of Iran. Among these will be differences in religious interpretations and the competition between the Shia centers and ayatollahs in Iraq and Iran. Oil policy --- production levels and pricing --- will be contentious. Rising anger at Iranian intervention in Iraqi political matters is but a matter of time. And finally, Persian cultural attitudes --- condescension toward Arab Shia --- will lead to tensions and, I predict, ultimately limit Iranian influence.

We end where we began.

“Where a man stands determines what he sees.”

But equally true is: “What men do with what they see is theirs to decide.”

Labels: ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Gulf War, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, SHAPIRO LECTURE, Syria, The Gulf, The Western Front, Turkey

Republicans lashing out so strongly against Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) call for the pull out of Iraq was a disproportionate response to the simple act of free speech. One might argue that it was not the dissent that was so jarring and abhorrent to the GOP but the source that uttered it. John Murtha is a war veteran and has strong connections within the military establishment. “Murtha is not a typical left-wing Dem. A Vietnam vet, he served 37 years in the Marines and received two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star with a Combat "V" and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.(NYP)" Those that bleed together… and all that. So, what we witnessed might well be a bit of true Washington smoke and mirrors.

Whether it was the dark lord Cheney or the master of puppets Rove who orchestrated and mobilized the tools of the administration to gang up in such short order is irrelevant. With poll ratings in the sewer and no real light at the end of the tunnel short of complete capitulation, the Bush administration is truly up against a wall and in check on all fronts. Its kind of nice.

The rude lashing out was an effort to draw the public’s view away from the real significance of the statement. The word on the street is that Murtha is in tight with many generals at the Pentagon and in the field. He has their ear and their confidence via his service and experience. If he calling for a withdrawl of our troops, the odds are strongly suggestive that he is giving voice to not only his constituency, but to those who conduct the very instruments and cogs of the American war machine.

In Roman society, Caesars had to have the support of the legions in order to rule effectively and securely. While the Bush administration is in no genuine threat of being assassinated by some uppity praetorians, this is as close as Bush and Co. has come to getting stabbed by a messenger of Brutae. Dissent from the military is inevitable given the circumstances, if you consider that neither the ruler nor his chief minions ever truly served in the armed forces. Can you say five deferments? Shakey Air National Guard attendance records anyone? Never in the life of American government has there been a situation as clear cut as this with those in power basically saying “Do as I say and who cares that I wouldn’t do it were I in your shoes.” One could hope that the conservative culture of the military will be forever influenced by the events of our time and from here forward not so blindly support a Republican leadership for conservatism’s sake.

Lets see where we are by mid-March. :-)

BTW, sorry I have not posted for a while. More when I can...

Labels: Bush Administration, Iraq, John Murtha, Karl Rove, POTUS, Republican Party, Rome, Vietnam, VPOTUS

I thought the time would come when I could quote myself and behold! Here it is! Well, not really. It is more of a reprint. But not an entire reprint. Just some segments relevant to our, apparently delusional, President. I heard about it on a podcast from Democracy Now! yesterday that was a few days old. Then, I see it again in this article from the BBC Americas.

Quotes from the Chief:

God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.

Belief is a dangerous thing and I have written about it before. Here are some bits from “The Streets Will Flow With the Blood of the Believers” that I wrote way back on 9/17/2004. Que the Way Back Machine *chimes and bells sound, vision gets wavy, words come back into focus*

...There is a little something that all the founding fathers agreed on in setting up our country called the separation of church and state.

We mention this separation not to infer that the church and our government have linked up and are now running the country in concert. That step has been skipped. Something more insipid has happened. Unless you have been in a coma or been high for the last 3+ years (the latter we would not blame you for), you will well know that the current president is a Christian. Born again. He is a true believer in the lord and savior, Jesus Christ. He is one of a great and growing many in this country that will trust in God to provide and guide the way. To have faith despite whatever harrowing circumstances may come. What is even more frightening is that W. thinks and has said that he truly believes that the lord above put him in office. Great. We have another word to describe him. Fundamentalist.

There is another believer out there who is also a leader of a ridiculously strong, organized group who seems to have trickled off the news cycle more than he should have. Who can say Osama bin Laden? He too is a fundamentalist.

Getting back to the believer in the office of the Chief Executive… Part of the reason the country is where it is today is because Bush believes certain things. He believes that Saddam was a threat. He believes Democracy is the best form of government. He believes that he is the right guy for the job. He believes. He takes it on faith…

…Education is failing all over the US. Bush insists that, nay, believes that No Child Left Behind is working despite heaps of evidence and testament telling otherwise. Math and sciences are being pushed over reading and writing. That promotes better accountants and chemists, but it doesn’t encourage free, intelligent thinking. But that works for the party of Bush just fine. …

Despite their insistence to the contrary, we are losing the War on Terror. The Bush administration has done everything bin Laden had hoped for and more. The Muslim world has been in disarray for hundreds of years, but bin Laden cracked the nut on getting Islam’s act together. If Islam is threatened, Muslims unite despite their differences. Jihad, the defensive kind, is a powerful underlying current of Islam and bin Laden is very aware of it and adept at using it. Islamists don’t hate us for who we are and what we believe. They may not like us, or our system, but that isn’t the crux. What is the crux is that U.S. policy appears to be, and in many respects is, a form of imperialist colonialism that is hurting the world, most pointedly the Islamic world. Cheap oil anyone? Nothing brings people together more than a common, easily identifiable enemy. Israel, oil and the support of repressive regimes, i.e. the House of Saud, are why we are the focus of Muslim enmity.

Mr. Bush is clearly not a student of history. If he had ever done his own homework, perhaps his decisions, the ones he claims he can make better than any other contender for the Presidency, would have been a bit more informed. But instead, he didn’t. He let other people guide his choices. He took it on faith. He believed, and still believes, that the dog is still wagging its tail. For future reference, Sun Tzu would have been a good start. The “Know Your Enemy” bit would help a lot.

Now, to cover some tail feathers, we offer this caveat: Religion isn’t to blame. Hubris, ignorance, idealism and/or fundamentalism are. Faith is a good thing if it gets you through a tough day. Your belief in a god is not a bad thing if it nourishes you and those around you in a positive way. Faith that guides you counter to what common sense and facts dictate is not so much faith as fundamentalism. The beauty of Democracy is that it, unlike fundamentalist belief regardless of denomination, is flexible. However, stretch it too far and it can break. We are near a breaking point now. Florida in November will be where that match gets lit. But that is another rant altogether.

Basically, everything has been wrong from step one since September 11, 2001. We missed a colossal opportunity to make a good thing out of tragedy by accepting the compassion of the world, but the faith and faith-enabled ideology of our current leaders carried the day and look where we are now. America has played its cards all wrong. Osama has proven he is smarter than Bush. We are one or two moves away from check, perhaps even check mate and Cheney is spouting that if we make the wrong choice, America will get hit again. Guess what? We are going to get hit no matter what unless some serious changes happen in U.S. policy. When that happens, the streets will flow with the blood of the believers who put, and possibly keep, Bush in office. What is truly sad is that others who know better will suffer equally if not more so.

To read the original post in its entirety, click here.

Its not so good to know that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Labels: Afghanistan, BBC, Belief, Christians, fundamentalism, god, Iraq, Jesus, Middle East, oil, Osama bin Laden, Palestine, Saddam Hussein, separation of powers

These 10 steps for Iraq are just what the doctor ordered. Thanks to TPM for the tip. If you look at Juan Cole’s entry, you think to yourself, “Self. Bush is polling at less than 40% in some/most polls. He can’t go down much further.” So, if the guy has nothing to lose, (except American soldiers lives, obviously) why doesn’t he option to get the job done and done the best way possible? I loathe the idea of more troops being sent into a region where they are targets on multiple levels and have to put their lives on the line for a huge mistake. However it needs to be done now.

I hate to be the one to admit it, but I caught myself in a flip flop. For the first few months of the Iraq War, I was solidly against it. As time passed, but my moderate side got the better of me and swayed my opinion to ambivalence in that now that there are troops on the ground, we have an obligation to finish the job. Then, a few weeks ago I lost patience and began to think a swift pullout letting the Iraqis fend for themselves was the way to go. I mean, they hate the infidel anyway. Why not abide by their wishes and get out of dodge? After reading this 10 step plan, I realize that this is not the good or even feasible option.

If we were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, we would be opening the door to a Pandora’s Box of nastiness that we, America, would be either directly or indirectly responsible for. Firstly, civil war is assured. History gives us many lessons of how awful that can be. And our exit would be the excuse to let it happen. An offshoot of civil war would be genocide. Iraq is ripe for it.

Sunni, Shia and Kurds have been chomping at the bit to clench power and screw the other group(s) over since Saddam was toppled. We all decried the genocides in Rowanda and Bosnia. Darfur is not officially genocide yet, but it might as well be. And, we did little or nothing about those, save for Bosnia and that was bit late.

These atrocities are the SAME as the Jewish Holocaust. Yes, different lands, peoples and all that, but single groups, ethnic or religious were singled out and eradication was what they faced. You can argue over numbers, but then you are asking that nasty question of what a human life is worth. I am not game for it. We just need to do the right thing.

So, obviously there is wavering support for this war effort. Of course! With something so poorly run and with casualties for America’s sons and daughters rising daily, why wouldn’t there be? But again, getting the job done and done effectively would change things slightly. It is one thing to report marked, quantifiable and verifiable progress that all agree on. It is quite another to sling propaganda, rhetoric and inappropriate analogies around just to get people to cheer for a similarity that does not exist. I mean, when our nation’s President has the temerity to equate the moral imperative of Iraq to that of World War II, that is stretching things beyond tolerance. Are Nazi fascism and Japanese imperialism analogous to the Islamic insurgency? Methinks not. However, it is worth it to note that the Islamic insurgents and al Queda may consider us moral equivalents to the Japanese Imperialists. That comparison would certainly be fairer than the one Bush is making.

That being said let me also offer that if the perspective were shifted a little, Bush might not be as open for criticism as he is now. If he told us that we had the moral imperative to “stay the course” (I loathe that phrase) because we have destabilized things so greatly that horrific things (i.e. genocide and a ripe breeding ground for further and more stable terrorist activity) would happen that blood would be on our already bloody hands. However, admission of fault, guilt and contrition are not within Bush’s power, it would seem. Chalk it up to life in the bubble.

And again, the Bush spin machine is feeding the American people false ideas. He is saying that “They (terrorists, etc…) believe that democracies are inherently weak and corrupt and can be brought to their knees.” Uh, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRACY! However, it doesn’t help when the President turns around and does this. So, even if these statements are bold face lies, he is making them manifest behind the scenes and providing the false arguments with ample fodder. It is, at the very least, exasperating. When are we going to get a chief executive that is transparent and clearly on our side?

Which brings me to a less retch worthy topic: Even when things are really dark, there are always the voices of reason. Jon Stewart rocks! We are so lucky to have him. Dig this:

Jon Stewart: The people who say we shouldn't fight in Iraq aren't saying it's our fault. . . That is the conflation that is the most disturbing. . .

Christopher Hitchens: Don't you hear people saying. . .

Stewart: You hear people saying a lot of stupid [shit]. . . But there are reasonable disagreements in this country about the way this war has been conducted, that has nothing to do with people believing we should cut and run from the terrorists, or we should show weakness in the face of terrorism, or that we believe that we have in some way brought this upon ourselves.
. .
Hitch: [Sputter]

Stewart: They believe that this war is being conducted without transparency, without credibility, and without competence.
..
Hitch: I'm sorry, sunshine... I just watched you ridicule the president for saying he wouldn't give.
. .
Stewart: No, you misunderstood why. . . . That's not why I ridiculed the president. He refuses to answer questions from adults as though we were adults and falls back upon platitudes and phrases and talking points that does a disservice to the goals that he himself shares with the very people needs to convince.

Hitch: You want me to believe you're really secretly on the side of the Bush administration. . .

Stewart: I secretly need to believe he's on my side. He's too important and powerful a man not to be.

Hitch: [Sputter]

If in the highly unlikely event that someone reads this and that someone happens to know Jon Stewart well enough to do so, please hug the man for me. Do so weeping tears of gratitude and thank him vociferously from me. (And thanks to Wonkette for hipping me to it.) And if the FCC tries any funny stuff with him, I’m coming out of the booth!

Aside: In the earlier speech where Bush likens Iraq to World War II, Bush also criticized President Clinton for not being tougher on fighting terrorism. That is a big load of hooey. From reading Richard Clark’s Against All Enemies, I remember Clark mentioning at least once that Clinton was very much for the use of force in retaliation for various terrorist attacks. He was met with opposition from the military establishment not wishing to put their troops in harms way for fear of further entanglement. Also, he was advised against it by political aids for fear of criticism from the Republican majority that was dogging him continually anyway. So again, a weak leader is one who tries to pass the blame on. The buck should stop with you, Mr. President. Way to lower the bar yet again and bring further disgrace to the office.

For red staters who still think Bush is on their side, they got a hefty strike against that notion the other day. Poverty is up to 12.7%! This is the fourth consecutive year for the statistic’s rise. The only racial demographic that was inverse were the Asians. A Republican President that is good for business? Maybe not. A Republican President that is good for impoverished Asians? Maybe.

One other little ray of light amidst all this darkness is that Ann Coulter got the boot from the Arizona Daily Star. Here is a media publication that just raised the bar! Now if all the other papers that carry her column would just follow suit.

A quick shout out to the DCeiver for getting the nod from Wonkett on a slick little playlet. Kudos.

I think Cintra Wilson is cool.

As are these images, though not for the faint of stomach.

And, I find this amusing, but it suffers from the same lack of class as the subjects it chooses to berate. Sort of. (Thanks to Tom for hipping me to it.)

And what kind of careless blogger would I be if I didn’t mention Katrina? Talk about FUBAR! The Big Easy is not even the Big Soggy. Its more like the new Atlantis. Need I mention that all of this would be still as catastrophic but slightly more in hand if we had some more National Guard troops to lend a hand? I heard somewhere that Governor Nagin made a comment to the effect that if we weren’t so committed in Iraq, we would have more help with this colossal tragedy. If anyone has a link, please hook me up!

Wait… I see it now! Our misunderstood President has the gift of foresight. One of the things our gulf coast areas need most now is sand! And our National Guardsmen and women happen to have superb access to that raw material. Genius! New Orleans is saved! (And no, that wasn’t me that came up with that. Chalk it up to my prior source.)

Now, I promise this is the last bit. I just read this on CNN: “Gov. Haley Barbour compared the devastation to a nuclear blast Tuesday after touring the coast. "I can only imagine that this is what Hiroshima looked like 60 years ago," he said.” [TPM] I’m sorry, but NO! I don’t mean to belittle the enormity of this tragic event, but without knowing a great deal about the dynamics of a nuclear blast, I can safely guess that flooding is nowhere near as close or accurate as a description. Maybe it could analogize the economic toll. So, here again, we see that is all about the money. Can you guess what party Barbour is?

Labels: Bosnia, Christopher Hitchens, civil war, Darfur, genocide, Haley Barbour, Holocaust, Iraq, Jon Stewart, Juan Cole, Katrina, Kurds, Ray Nagin, Richard Clark, Rwanda, Shia, Sunni, Wonkette

Just to get some of my old bits onto this site... Some points are still salient. Enjoy.

11/10/2004
Dark Cloud Over America: Day 9 (the faint silver lining)

The rats are leaving the ship! Is the ship that is federal American government half full or half empty with water to herald the retreat? Asscroft handed in a multi-page letter of resignation to the Shrub and is headed for the hills. Clearly dillusional, he actually had the temerity to say "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." Too many bare breasted statues in Washington for his weak little heart to take, more likely. Others are following suit. We will see who we get stuck with next.

Then we see this cartoon... Can we say Pat Oliphant rocks? We agree with his take on the situation completely. Here's the thing: Our current system of government, albeit tilted a direction that we don't like at present, is one that was literally hundreds of years in the making. Take some ancient Greece and Roman Empire, a hearty cup full of Magna Carta, add a healthy pinch of Enlightenment thinkers, maybe sprinkle a little Martin Luther in there and slide that concoction into a Dutch oven circa 1600's to early 1700's and let it cook up to 1776. Glaze with a U.S. Constitution and garnish with some Jefferson, Franklin and Washington and you have yourself a phat democracy! Best enjoyed with some John Quincy Adams on the side.

To extend this metaphor train obnoxiously further... If you have ever made bread, you know it takes time and patients. Lots of effort, too. That is democracy for you. America seems to be trying to pawn off a cheap, Wonderbread version on Iraq and Afghanistan. The world knows we have ourselves some delicious Tuscan whole wheat over here, so why would anyone settle for Wonderbread?

We fear the loaf of U.S. democracy either has mold or is growing stale.

More to the point, a democracy is learned and earned, not bestowed. We have a system of government that commands appreciation because of the well documented history of blood, sweat and tears that went into creating it. It is that context and history that only (most) Americans and like established democracies can appreciate. The world of Islam has no comparable history and little impetus to try to get their communal psyche geared to that perspective. (Though they do have plenty of blood spilled, you have to admit. Thank you Crusades!) All that and we are blowing up everything of theirs in the name of democracy and security.

True story time: A group of Spanish conquistadors approached a peaceful tribe of pueblo Indians and the conquistador leader, in his native tongue, decreed to the Indians standing before him that they had about a minute to convert to Christianity or they would all be put to the sword in the name of God and whichever Spanish Monarch was reigning at the time. There was no effort to translate or learn about the people they were addressing. Just the decree. The conquistadors slaughtered the entire community. Substitute Christianity for democracy and modify the rhetoric and this appears quite familiar, doesn't it?

Who would have thought Iraq and the old American west would have so much in common?

posted by A. L. Deviant at 1:19 PM

Labels: Afghanistan, Bush, Crusades, Greece, Iraq, John Ashcroft, Magna Carta, metaphor train, Pat Oliphant, Rome

Am I reading this correctly? Look at the third paragraph. The AP quotes President Bush as saying ''We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iran,'' Bush said. ''An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations.'' Color me confused.

Do we have troops in Iran? Have I been so pummeled by bad news and executive buffoonery that I somehow missed the invasion or Iran? Or, is it the more likely case that President Bush was riffing and merely gave over to verbal diarrhea and let some secret chicken out of the coop.

Do we have diplomatic engagement with Iran over the nuclear issue? I thought so. Are they a viable threat to the United States? I thought not. In fact, wasn’t it just determined that Iran was, at least technologically, years away from being able to attain nuclear weapons? ... Yes, the last time I checked, for whatever that is worth.

Good lord this is upsetting.

Bush goes on to say that as long as he is President, “we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism.” Well, that settles that. Now my fears are somewhat more confirmed than they already were. Comparisons to the Vietnam War are all too common when referring to the situation in Iraq. However, I would think that this statement by the only chief executive of this nation to be installed by the Supreme Court and not the people of the United States portends of the analogy being applied to the War on Terrorism in general.

Vietnam was not winnable. You know why. For those who are raising a quizzical eyebrow, dig this. Vietnam had a centuries long history of invasion, subjugation and colonialization by bunch of different countries, China and France being the biggest offenders. When America came in, the Vietnamese just saw them as another colonialist invading power. It had nothing to do with politics or ideology for them. It was about sovereignty and stopping the violation of their land. Communism was just an organizational tool. The US was fighting something stronger than them. They were fighting an idea and resentment that was hundreds of years old. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last child if they had to. Nothing could have broken that resolve.

Once again, we are involved in a conflict in part of the world where we do not (at least our President doesn’t) fully understand the general perceptions and ethos of the culture we are trying to “save” and democratize. This may seem like pulling dirt out of history’s dustbin, but the Crusades are still very present in the minds of many Arabs. So, once again, you have an invader stomping in and telling them how its going to be. It won’t fly. I will eat my hat if democracy sticks in Iraq.

And Bush is thinking about Iran?

Does the Arab world hate the infidel? Sure. Is that xenophobic, wrong and generally stupid? To us, sure. To them, heck no. We can thank the British, Spanish and Christianity in general for that. We, the United States of America, one of the younger nations on the world stage, march over to the fertile crescent and silk road lands, like true sophomores and think we can fix stuff, mold them in our democratic image? We can’t even get a President properly elected.

The same rules don’t apply in this war game. When people are willing to strap bombs to their chest to get us out, that’s a sign that we don’t belong. When the rules of the game are that different for the two teams playing, that strongly suggests that the game can’t be won. Our President’s myopia is costing us precious lives, truckloads of money and more good will than we can ever recoup. George W. Bush’s choices have written a check that no matter how big of an ass he may be, that ass cannot cash.

You can't kill an idea or attitude with a gun. Just a person. And, as their blood spreads, so does their idea.

BTW, I thought Maureen Dowd was good today.

Labels: Afghanistan, AP, Bush, Communism, Crusades, Iran, Iraq, Maureen Dowd, Middle East, Supreme Court, Vietnam

We may have a new candidate for douche bag of the week. Maybe, depending on how I feel by the end of this entry, we’ll have a douche bag of the month!

Here is a guy famous for some pretty top-notch comedy in the world of public discourse. With winners like suggesting that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device and saying that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." You knew the guy was bound to have another ripe zinger further down the line. Yesterday, he hit us with it!

This man of god, founder of the Christian Coalition, has called for our US government to facilitate the assassination of Hugo Chavez. This sounds mighty un-Christian to me. Granted that Chavez is a bit of a blow-hard ass, but to pop a cap in him seems a bit steep. Furthermore, the basis for the statement, a fear of Robertson’s that Venezuela may become "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism" is so rife with fallacies that I am not sure I can list them all here.

First, this country doesn’t need or want another Joseph McCarthy. Communism is a non-issue. People saw that it failed in Russia and they see how miserable people in Cuba are. (I’m am not going to touch China.) Communism is the least of our worries. For all intents and purposes, it is a red herring. And, Pat’s memory for history seems a bit foggy. Back in the 80’s, the Reagan Administration supported the Mujuhadin, a.k.a. Islamic fundamentalists, a.k.a. al Queda, to fight the Russian Communists. Thanks Ronnie! Islam has no love of Communism. It can be reasonably argued (unlike most of what Massah Robertson says) that Islam and Communism are completely incompatible. The annoying and sad thing is that lots of people believe Pat is truly doing the Lord’s work, is a good American and bummed that his Presidential bid failed.

The more unnerving thing is that the U.S., to a large degree, is where it is for thinking just like Mr. Robertson. It is because of America’s meddling nature that Islamists hate us and Hugo Chavez has ample fuel to spout off about how bad we are. We have supported regimes that oppress their peoples (remember Vietnam? How about Saudi Arabia?) We have stuck our nose where it did not belong because we want to protect our interests. Someone notable (please, if you know, tell me who, specifically) said that this, our current state of affairs, i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, world enmity, is the price of empire. Is it worth it?

In the afore linked article, Patsy gets to the heart of it all in saying "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." Its all about the oil.

As long as we are fat, secure and happy, who cares who we have to kill? Tens of thousands of Iraqis? No problem! So what if the environment is completely screwed. I’ve go my Hummer H2, my plasma screen, a well oiled semi-automatic with armor piercing bullets and more food in my fridge than 3/4 of the world sees in month. So what if our cars are screwing up the environment and creating rising tides that are displacing 20,000 island residents of Bangladesh? Just gimme the oil! We’ve got what we want. Nothing else matters.

I think Agent Smith hit the nail on the head.

Where is American self reliance? Where is Yankee ingenuity and a can do attitude? Where is the American Dream and the notion of sacrificing for the cause? Have we become an empire by default? Is this the fate of every republic? Lastly, communism clearly wasn’t sustainable. Can we follow the signs and determine if a democracy is sustainable?

Sorry for the drama. So, yeah. Pat Robertson is definitely douche bag of the month.

Labels: Afghanistan, al Queda, American Dream, Christian Coalition, Communism, Hugo Chavez, Iraq, Islamic fundamentalists, Mujuhadin, Pat Robertson, red herring, Ronald Reagan, Saudi Arabia