Iraqis want us to stay.
It isn't a surprise that the Kurds want us to remain in Iraq. US forces have essentially given the Kurds their own country for the last 15 years. Without US troops, Kurds would be vulnerable to subjugation by Turkey, Iran, or Arab Iraqis. Further, the Kurds were worst off under Saddam's rule, so they were most excited to see us invade in the first place.
The interesting change is that now Sunni Arab Iraqis want US troops to hang around. Only a year or two ago, Sunni Arabs were in full revolt against the US occupation. They claimed that the insurgency was soley designed to get the "occupier" out of Iraq. Obviously that was BS; they wanted us out of Iraq so they could take over again. Now that the Shias have gained power, the Sunnis realize they can't win a civil war and aren't so quick to see us leave them to the mercy of the vengeful Shia death squads.
You'll notice that the Shia want us around still, too; otherwise their PM would have asked us to leave. All three groups want us to stay around; the reason is because no group in Iraq has a winning hand yet. If one thought they had the power to take over the rest, they'd be trying to get us to leave.
This is a potentially very dangerous situation, but there is an opportunity here. There are three apparently equally matched competitors; that would make for a really nasty civil war (worse than whats going on now, anyway). Alternatively, it also means that the US has some enormous diplomatic leverage since it could easily tip the balance and determine the winner. Why aren't we using that leverage to broker a peace?
And there is a reason I havent posted much. Medschool is a pain in the ass. But I'm enjoying it.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
No censorship!
The founder of Wikipedia (my favorite website) is my hero. He has refused to censor politically sensitive articles at request of the Chinese government. This man has stood for what is right where others have sold out (Google being the largest example).
We should make it as difficult as possible for governments to control what their people see and hear...that is our best hope for the future. Hats off to Jimmy Wales for making the world a better place.
We should make it as difficult as possible for governments to control what their people see and hear...that is our best hope for the future. Hats off to Jimmy Wales for making the world a better place.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Get over it. And, why Iran cant have nukes.
There are all sorts of liberals that are whining that Joe Lieberman "betrayed" the party. They complain that he won't campaign for any of them, endorse any of them, et cetera, and therefore he is disloyal and selfish. Who betrayed who? Those on the left turned on Lieberman because he wouldn't march foot in step with the rest of the party? Because he thought for himself instead of having someone else think for him?
Well, how are they surprised that he won't help Dems now? Lieberman is an Independent, not a Democrat; he owes Dems nothing. How ironic that the people that are making the loudest noise about Joe's "betrayal" are the same ones that catalyzed his primary defeat to an opportunist millionaire.
And it is equally funny to watch leftists scream and yell that the Republicans aren't supporting their candidate in Connecticut. Of course they arent! He sucks! The Republicans realize that their man has no chance of getting elected, and that Lieberman is far better than Lamont. So they figure if all of the republicans vote or Joe, plus moderates, plus some Dems who will still respect the name, Lieberman has a great shot at winning the general election. I really really hope he does win =).
------------------
There is something else that is on my mind. It is simply mind boggling that people can be in a panic about looming threats such as global warming, and yet be totally ambivalent about the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons. I even feel like some (on the left) would actually prefer it if Iran got nukes. This thinking is so dangerous and so stupid, it is mind boggling.
In essence, we are dealing with a game of probabilities here. Nobody knows for sure whether global warming will be no problem, a small problem, or a big problem. However, it would be reasonable to place statistics on such scenarios. Some claim that even if Iran got nukes, it would never use them. Perhaps; but we can again look at statistics and claim that if Iran gets nukes, the probability of a nuclear war increases in the near future. How much of an increase are we prepared to accept? How much of an increase (in the chance of war) will there be? Consider:
-When one nation acquires nuclear weapons, then its major rival(s) feel extreme amounts of pressure to do so as well. Otherwise the balance of power is extremely upset in the favor of the nuclear armed nation. The result is a nuclear arms race; such a race greatly increase the probability of nuclear war. So when the US got nuclear weapons, you can bet that Stalin had his scientists working overtime to catch up. And they did, quickly.
Britain, being another rival of the Soviets, gained their nuclear weapons. The Chinese were rivals to both the US and USSR (in fact, China and the Soviets almost went to war); they acquired their nuclear weapons. And the French got them too, because they are French and wanted to feel significant.
But after all of the members of the UN security council had nukes, they agreed to try to stop their spread through the non-proliferation treaty. It should be very obvious - the more countries that have nukes, the greater the probability of accidental or intentional nuclear war. The world recognized this, and so most countries agreed and signed the treaty. Including other powerful nations, like Japan and Germany. The second and third largest economies in the world have decided to sign away their right to nuclear weapons because it was the right thing to do.
Look what happened after India tested its first nuke in 74. Its main rival, Pakistan, developed one as well. The probability of nuclear war drastically increased because there was a new arms race between two new nuclear armed nations. These two nations had already fought multiple conventional wars against each other...will a nuclear war be next? Probably not. Given that both of these nations are at least fairly stable, we can *hope* that MAD prevents a war from breaking out. But the thought of a nuclear armed India and Pakistan still makes me nervous. What happens if the Pakistani government is overthrown? What happens if rogue elements in the government steal a nuke? It is obvious; the probability of a nuclear war has greatly increased due to this extra proliferation.
So I am about to write about Iran, knowing that North Korea probably has nukes. Why am I not as concerned with North Korea? The main reason is because North Korea has no real rivals. Nobody is about to engage in a conventional war with the North. Think of it another way: essentially nobody in the world likes North Korea, not even China really, so their rivals are everyone, but nobody in particular. So a nuclear armed North Korea isn't something I like, but theres nothing we can do about it at this point, and it isnt going to start an arms race. Its more of a localized, one-time issue.
So why is Iran such a problem? Iran is a problem because Iran has a LOT of rivals. For starters, every Arabic country in the Middle East, save Syria (which has a temporary alliance of convenience with Iran). Keep in mind that Arabic countries are Arab Sunni Muslim dominated, while the Iranians are Shias and Persian. They dont get along. Heck, even Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs dont get along; look at Iraq. And now add the ethnic variable to the equation, and they're (Iran/Arabs) about as opposite as anyone can be.
Dont believe me? Think back to when the war between Hezbollah and Israel broke out. What was the initial response from Arabic countries, such as Saudi Arabia? It was to condemn Hezbollah. Thats right, the Saudis and some other Arabic countries condemned a Muslim Arabic militia (granted, a Shiite one) instead of condemning Israel. That is absolutely unprecedented.
Of course, they had to backtrack eventually because their populations got so pissed off at Israel. But the lesson is clear. Arab Sunnis are very nervous about Iran. If Iran gets nukes, it will very possibly start an arms race in the Middle East. The Saudis will want them. The Egyptians will, too. You can bet if Israel has them, it will make it known (as to deter Iranian attack) and build a hell of a lot more of them. Then Syria might want them if Israel shows they have them. God knows what Iraq will be doing. I'm sorry, but does anyone think an arms race in the middle east is a good idea?
Arms race aside, there is also the risk of Iran directly arming a group like Hezbollah with a nuclear warhead. They've given Hezbollah thousands of missiles. The Iranian leadership believes the apocalypse is coming soon; they've openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Why wouldn't they pass off nukes to terrorists?
The probability of a nuclear war breaking out amongst stable nations that are permanent members of the UN security council is low, but not low enough. Those odds have greatly gone up since India and Pakistan have both become nuclear armed. If Iran gets nukes, and sparks an arms race in the middle east, the probability of a nuclear war happening in the near future is good.
Those on the far left will scream and yell about the off chance that global warming could cause some flooding and droughts a century from now, when there might be an exponentially greater chance of a nuclear war a decade from now. Its absolutely nuts. Its nuts that the left, including the homosexual community, would not see the danger in a nation like Iran, who just a year ago publicly hung two gay teenagers for being such. Opposition to Bush no matter what is the message here. Its a common theme in this country, that frankly I am sick and tired of. I'm tired of ideology and party loyalty over common sense. This applies to everyone, but I personally think those on the left are more guilty of it, because theoretically they should know better.
Bah. Now I'm all riled up...I'm never going to get to sleep.
Nick
Well, how are they surprised that he won't help Dems now? Lieberman is an Independent, not a Democrat; he owes Dems nothing. How ironic that the people that are making the loudest noise about Joe's "betrayal" are the same ones that catalyzed his primary defeat to an opportunist millionaire.
And it is equally funny to watch leftists scream and yell that the Republicans aren't supporting their candidate in Connecticut. Of course they arent! He sucks! The Republicans realize that their man has no chance of getting elected, and that Lieberman is far better than Lamont. So they figure if all of the republicans vote or Joe, plus moderates, plus some Dems who will still respect the name, Lieberman has a great shot at winning the general election. I really really hope he does win =).
------------------
There is something else that is on my mind. It is simply mind boggling that people can be in a panic about looming threats such as global warming, and yet be totally ambivalent about the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons. I even feel like some (on the left) would actually prefer it if Iran got nukes. This thinking is so dangerous and so stupid, it is mind boggling.
In essence, we are dealing with a game of probabilities here. Nobody knows for sure whether global warming will be no problem, a small problem, or a big problem. However, it would be reasonable to place statistics on such scenarios. Some claim that even if Iran got nukes, it would never use them. Perhaps; but we can again look at statistics and claim that if Iran gets nukes, the probability of a nuclear war increases in the near future. How much of an increase are we prepared to accept? How much of an increase (in the chance of war) will there be? Consider:
-When one nation acquires nuclear weapons, then its major rival(s) feel extreme amounts of pressure to do so as well. Otherwise the balance of power is extremely upset in the favor of the nuclear armed nation. The result is a nuclear arms race; such a race greatly increase the probability of nuclear war. So when the US got nuclear weapons, you can bet that Stalin had his scientists working overtime to catch up. And they did, quickly.
Britain, being another rival of the Soviets, gained their nuclear weapons. The Chinese were rivals to both the US and USSR (in fact, China and the Soviets almost went to war); they acquired their nuclear weapons. And the French got them too, because they are French and wanted to feel significant.
But after all of the members of the UN security council had nukes, they agreed to try to stop their spread through the non-proliferation treaty. It should be very obvious - the more countries that have nukes, the greater the probability of accidental or intentional nuclear war. The world recognized this, and so most countries agreed and signed the treaty. Including other powerful nations, like Japan and Germany. The second and third largest economies in the world have decided to sign away their right to nuclear weapons because it was the right thing to do.
Look what happened after India tested its first nuke in 74. Its main rival, Pakistan, developed one as well. The probability of nuclear war drastically increased because there was a new arms race between two new nuclear armed nations. These two nations had already fought multiple conventional wars against each other...will a nuclear war be next? Probably not. Given that both of these nations are at least fairly stable, we can *hope* that MAD prevents a war from breaking out. But the thought of a nuclear armed India and Pakistan still makes me nervous. What happens if the Pakistani government is overthrown? What happens if rogue elements in the government steal a nuke? It is obvious; the probability of a nuclear war has greatly increased due to this extra proliferation.
So I am about to write about Iran, knowing that North Korea probably has nukes. Why am I not as concerned with North Korea? The main reason is because North Korea has no real rivals. Nobody is about to engage in a conventional war with the North. Think of it another way: essentially nobody in the world likes North Korea, not even China really, so their rivals are everyone, but nobody in particular. So a nuclear armed North Korea isn't something I like, but theres nothing we can do about it at this point, and it isnt going to start an arms race. Its more of a localized, one-time issue.
So why is Iran such a problem? Iran is a problem because Iran has a LOT of rivals. For starters, every Arabic country in the Middle East, save Syria (which has a temporary alliance of convenience with Iran). Keep in mind that Arabic countries are Arab Sunni Muslim dominated, while the Iranians are Shias and Persian. They dont get along. Heck, even Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs dont get along; look at Iraq. And now add the ethnic variable to the equation, and they're (Iran/Arabs) about as opposite as anyone can be.
Dont believe me? Think back to when the war between Hezbollah and Israel broke out. What was the initial response from Arabic countries, such as Saudi Arabia? It was to condemn Hezbollah. Thats right, the Saudis and some other Arabic countries condemned a Muslim Arabic militia (granted, a Shiite one) instead of condemning Israel. That is absolutely unprecedented.
Of course, they had to backtrack eventually because their populations got so pissed off at Israel. But the lesson is clear. Arab Sunnis are very nervous about Iran. If Iran gets nukes, it will very possibly start an arms race in the Middle East. The Saudis will want them. The Egyptians will, too. You can bet if Israel has them, it will make it known (as to deter Iranian attack) and build a hell of a lot more of them. Then Syria might want them if Israel shows they have them. God knows what Iraq will be doing. I'm sorry, but does anyone think an arms race in the middle east is a good idea?
Arms race aside, there is also the risk of Iran directly arming a group like Hezbollah with a nuclear warhead. They've given Hezbollah thousands of missiles. The Iranian leadership believes the apocalypse is coming soon; they've openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Why wouldn't they pass off nukes to terrorists?
The probability of a nuclear war breaking out amongst stable nations that are permanent members of the UN security council is low, but not low enough. Those odds have greatly gone up since India and Pakistan have both become nuclear armed. If Iran gets nukes, and sparks an arms race in the middle east, the probability of a nuclear war happening in the near future is good.
Those on the far left will scream and yell about the off chance that global warming could cause some flooding and droughts a century from now, when there might be an exponentially greater chance of a nuclear war a decade from now. Its absolutely nuts. Its nuts that the left, including the homosexual community, would not see the danger in a nation like Iran, who just a year ago publicly hung two gay teenagers for being such. Opposition to Bush no matter what is the message here. Its a common theme in this country, that frankly I am sick and tired of. I'm tired of ideology and party loyalty over common sense. This applies to everyone, but I personally think those on the left are more guilty of it, because theoretically they should know better.
Bah. Now I'm all riled up...I'm never going to get to sleep.
Nick
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Only two more years!
If anyone wants a strong dose of optimism for the day, here it is.
I am not going to come out and say that I believe anything this guy says. However, I havent come to the realization that it is time to throw in the towel yet, either. The violence in Iraq is horrid, to be sure. But it isnt capable of bringing down the government, or even coming close. Granted, thats because the US military is still there (notice you dont hear anyone asking us to leave anymore?). But in a couple more years, I would imagine that the government could stand on its own two feet. There would still be violence for a while; but as long as no strongman attempts a coup d'etat, who knows...
I am not going to come out and say that I believe anything this guy says. However, I havent come to the realization that it is time to throw in the towel yet, either. The violence in Iraq is horrid, to be sure. But it isnt capable of bringing down the government, or even coming close. Granted, thats because the US military is still there (notice you dont hear anyone asking us to leave anymore?). But in a couple more years, I would imagine that the government could stand on its own two feet. There would still be violence for a while; but as long as no strongman attempts a coup d'etat, who knows...
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Just a link
Nasrallah lives within me.
And the offical news from the Iranians: they're ready for serious talks. Oh well. I've had a night to sleep on it, and I'm not so pissed off anymore. Now I'll just psychologically prepare myself for the next big war that will be coming.
Cheers,
Nick
And the offical news from the Iranians: they're ready for serious talks. Oh well. I've had a night to sleep on it, and I'm not so pissed off anymore. Now I'll just psychologically prepare myself for the next big war that will be coming.
Cheers,
Nick
Monday, August 21, 2006
Taking matters into our own hands
The word on the street is that the Iranians will pursue their nuclear ambitions, according to their supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. This really comes as no surprise. Iran is confident that the Bush administration will be powerless to stop their program, either by military or diplomatic means. They are pretty much correct. Bush can do nothing right now.
The military option should be out of the question. The fact that the Bush administration would even consider it shows how weak our hand really is. Given that the Iranian facilities are so spread out and hidden, its doubtful that airstrikes would work well. Even *if* they were successful, it would only be a temporary solution to a long term problem. Not only that, but there are plenty of places the Iranians could retaliate; Iraq being the most obvious.
There will be no strong UN Security Council resolution. At best, there will be a slap on Iran's wrists, but even that would surprise me. The UN will be again paralyzed into inaction due to Russian and Chinese vetos. They have their own economic and energy interests at stake, and have no desire to anger a large oil supplier in the form of Iran. Besides, Iran and its proxies aren't threatening Russia or China, so they aren't worried.
The Bush administration won't be able to convince the Russians or the Chinese to do the right thing, but I bet the American people could. We Americans could wield our most powerful weapon against Russia and China - our power as consumers. If the Russians and Chinese refuse to back strict sanctions against Iran, then the American people should boycott as many of their goods as possible. They would quickly learn where their economic interests lie.
A strong Security Council resolution and sanctions is the only way that we can effectively deal with the Iranian government. The world - not just America, must diplomatically and economically squeeze Iran until it collapses. We must force the Iranian government to waste its resources on military equipment while denying it a strong economy that would also allow it to keep its population happy. We must continue to confront and isolate its allies, for instance ensuring that the UN follow through on its commitments and completely disarm Hezbollah. Finally we should increase support for Iran's enemies, both internal and external. Eventually, change will come from within; perhaps even before Iran is able to acquire nukes. This is the same strategy that defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War, without a shot fired. It can defeat Iran as well.
This is the only option that I can see. If we stand and do nothing, and allow the Bush administration to try to resolve the problem, we might end up in another war:
Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow in non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: "This won't drag on for years. There are two deadlines of sorts at the end of 2008. That is the earliest date by which some people think Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon. I think the date is more like 2010.
"And on November 2008, there is the US presidential election. President Bush will be inclined not to let this problem be passed on. There will be a growing mood in the US administration to take other action."
Asked if Israel's problems in disarming Hezbollah showed the limitations of air power and might therefore make an attack on Iran less likely, he replied: "Israel's actions make an attack on Iran more likely as it removes one of Iran's retaliatory tools, an attack on Israel by Hezbollah. This has now been pre-empted."
Hmph. If we were going to bomb Iran, we shouldn't even consider bombing their nuclear facilities. We should bomb all of their oil pipelines, and blockade the Persian Gulf. Sink every Iranian oil tanker that we see. They can't make nuclear weapons if they don't have any oil revenue. And that way, nobody could accuse us of going to war for oil.
...not that I'm confident that Americans would prefer 5$/gallon gas at the pumps to World War 3. But hey, I can dream.
*** Update ***
I've decided that I'm searching desperately for a good solution to this problem, when one probably doesn't exist. Nobody is going to boycott anyone, Iran isn't going to stop their program, and Bush isn't going to leave office with this problem unaddressed. Sigh.
The military option should be out of the question. The fact that the Bush administration would even consider it shows how weak our hand really is. Given that the Iranian facilities are so spread out and hidden, its doubtful that airstrikes would work well. Even *if* they were successful, it would only be a temporary solution to a long term problem. Not only that, but there are plenty of places the Iranians could retaliate; Iraq being the most obvious.
There will be no strong UN Security Council resolution. At best, there will be a slap on Iran's wrists, but even that would surprise me. The UN will be again paralyzed into inaction due to Russian and Chinese vetos. They have their own economic and energy interests at stake, and have no desire to anger a large oil supplier in the form of Iran. Besides, Iran and its proxies aren't threatening Russia or China, so they aren't worried.
The Bush administration won't be able to convince the Russians or the Chinese to do the right thing, but I bet the American people could. We Americans could wield our most powerful weapon against Russia and China - our power as consumers. If the Russians and Chinese refuse to back strict sanctions against Iran, then the American people should boycott as many of their goods as possible. They would quickly learn where their economic interests lie.
A strong Security Council resolution and sanctions is the only way that we can effectively deal with the Iranian government. The world - not just America, must diplomatically and economically squeeze Iran until it collapses. We must force the Iranian government to waste its resources on military equipment while denying it a strong economy that would also allow it to keep its population happy. We must continue to confront and isolate its allies, for instance ensuring that the UN follow through on its commitments and completely disarm Hezbollah. Finally we should increase support for Iran's enemies, both internal and external. Eventually, change will come from within; perhaps even before Iran is able to acquire nukes. This is the same strategy that defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War, without a shot fired. It can defeat Iran as well.
This is the only option that I can see. If we stand and do nothing, and allow the Bush administration to try to resolve the problem, we might end up in another war:
Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow in non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: "This won't drag on for years. There are two deadlines of sorts at the end of 2008. That is the earliest date by which some people think Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon. I think the date is more like 2010.
"And on November 2008, there is the US presidential election. President Bush will be inclined not to let this problem be passed on. There will be a growing mood in the US administration to take other action."
Asked if Israel's problems in disarming Hezbollah showed the limitations of air power and might therefore make an attack on Iran less likely, he replied: "Israel's actions make an attack on Iran more likely as it removes one of Iran's retaliatory tools, an attack on Israel by Hezbollah. This has now been pre-empted."
Hmph. If we were going to bomb Iran, we shouldn't even consider bombing their nuclear facilities. We should bomb all of their oil pipelines, and blockade the Persian Gulf. Sink every Iranian oil tanker that we see. They can't make nuclear weapons if they don't have any oil revenue. And that way, nobody could accuse us of going to war for oil.
...not that I'm confident that Americans would prefer 5$/gallon gas at the pumps to World War 3. But hey, I can dream.
*** Update ***
I've decided that I'm searching desperately for a good solution to this problem, when one probably doesn't exist. Nobody is going to boycott anyone, Iran isn't going to stop their program, and Bush isn't going to leave office with this problem unaddressed. Sigh.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
A 'hero and victor'
As would be expected, Palestinians are celebrating Nasrallah (the leader of Hezbollah) as a new hero. Its a shame that the Israelis didn't manage to kill him. I highly doubt that the international community will force Hezbollah to disarm; this new ceasefire probably wont last.
The following is a summary of Arab military efforts by a reporter in northern Israel. Its completely true, and pathetically so. The rest can be read here.
“Hassan Nasrallah declared victory today,” I said. “What do you think about that?”
He laughed. And of course he would laugh. Everyone in the world knew Nasrallah would declare victory no matter what if he was not in a cage and if he still had a pulse. The Arab bar for military victory is set pathetically low. All you have to do is survive. You “win” even if your country is torn to pieces. The very idea of a Pyrrhic victory doesn’t occur to people who start unwinnable wars with the state of Israel.
The following is a summary of Arab military efforts by a reporter in northern Israel. Its completely true, and pathetically so. The rest can be read here.
“Hassan Nasrallah declared victory today,” I said. “What do you think about that?”
He laughed. And of course he would laugh. Everyone in the world knew Nasrallah would declare victory no matter what if he was not in a cage and if he still had a pulse. The Arab bar for military victory is set pathetically low. All you have to do is survive. You “win” even if your country is torn to pieces. The very idea of a Pyrrhic victory doesn’t occur to people who start unwinnable wars with the state of Israel.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Lieberman falls to a bum
Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut was beat in the primaries by millionaire Ned Lamont. There was a grassrootes left-wing movement to oust Joe, mainly because of his support of the war in Iraq. Lamont, of course, calls for an immediate pull-out of our troops from Iraq.
Daily Kos summarizes by saying "Democrats are united on the war. Lieberman is no longer a democrat..."
The funny thing, is that Dems are in fact not united on the war. Bill Clinton, the most popular Democrat in the country, gave a speech in which he stated that it was important for us to remain in Iraq for some time longer. Reasonable democrats will rise above partisanship and realize what is in the best interest of the country, and the world.
Austin Bay blog elaborates on my dream ticket: McCain/Lieberman 08.
More good news; Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman from Georgia, was beaten in the primaries. Do we all remember her? She was the one who punched a police officer in Washington. Here is another 'great' quote by her:
We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11... Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms' stocks. What did the Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?
She will not be missed.
Daily Kos summarizes by saying "Democrats are united on the war. Lieberman is no longer a democrat..."
The funny thing, is that Dems are in fact not united on the war. Bill Clinton, the most popular Democrat in the country, gave a speech in which he stated that it was important for us to remain in Iraq for some time longer. Reasonable democrats will rise above partisanship and realize what is in the best interest of the country, and the world.
Austin Bay blog elaborates on my dream ticket: McCain/Lieberman 08.
More good news; Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman from Georgia, was beaten in the primaries. Do we all remember her? She was the one who punched a police officer in Washington. Here is another 'great' quote by her:
We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11... Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms' stocks. What did the Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?
She will not be missed.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Morally suspect, strategically stupid.
Charles Krauthammer blogs on the current situation between Israel and Lebanon. Here is a historical analogy he makes, attempting to argue that Israel's attacks on Lebanon are morally justified.
When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin.
Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.
Is the state of Israel morally justified in this crisis? Even though they were clearly attacked first (kidnapping of two soldiers), I would say no; they do not have the moral high ground. Charles' analogy above is flawed, because the state of Lebanon did not launch an unprovoked act of war against Israel like the Japanese had against the US. It was a rogue element within Lebanon that started this crisis.
Hezbollah is not Lebanon. In fact, I'd say that Hezbollah is more Syria and Iran than it is Lebanon. Hezbollah should have been disarmed, according to UN resolution 1559, but was not. The international community lacked the foresight and the resolve to enforce this UN resolution (strange). Additionally, the Lebanese government didnt have the power to disarm Hezbollah itself. That is because Hezbollah is more powerful than the Lebanese Army, thanks to generous Iranian arms support.
So yes, Israel was attacked first. But by the Lebanese state? No. The Lebanese aren't responsible for Hezbollah's actions. If we want someone to blame, we can look to the UN, Iran, or Syria. Meanwhile hundreds of Lebanese civilians are dead, hundreds of thousands are displaced, and billions of dollars of damage has been done to Lebanese infrastructure. All of this has happened to these people, and they really had no control over it.
The only moral argument Israel has going for it is that perhaps 40% of Lebanese are Shiite Muslim and so they "support Hezbollah", therefore their action is justified. Well, Hezbollah may be popular, but if I had to put money on it, I'd wager that the vast majority of those Shiite Muslims want peace. I'm sorry, wanted peace.
Morality aside, in my last post I pointed out that Israel's actions were strategically stupid. I stand by that. It should be well known to Israelis of all people that their policy in the middle east is inexorably tied to our own. Right now, we the USA are tied up in Iraq, and are still in Afghanistan. The Israelis themselves were/are fighting Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza. We're also trying to contain Iran. We were fighting on four fronts between the two of us. Why would Israel go and open up a 5th front in Lebanon? Do we really need to galvanize worldwide opinion against us at such a crucial time? Did our troops in Iraq really need the majority Shiites all riled up because of what was happening in Lebanon? And what have we learned about unilateral over-reactions in response to terrorists? Apparently, nothing.
And so here we are. Israel certainly doesnt have the moral high ground; its neutral if anything. Strategically, this was the biggest mistake since Iraq. And these are things I would think while assuming Israel would still accomplish its main goal of severely crippling Hezbollah. It is not clear at all right now whether that will even happen. A stalemate here would be a victory for Hezbollah and a defeat for Israel. That would be the worst foreign policy disaster...possibly in Israeli history. Certainly, the peace process...at least what was left of it, was set back 1-2 decades.
Perhaps the Americans and Israelis should stop electing leaders that lack military experience yet are overly enthusiastic about using their nation's military to solve problems. General Powell was the only man in the Bush administration that knew anything about war, and he was against the invasion of Iraq. If only Ariel Sharon wasn't in a coma, Israel wouldn't be in their predicament, either.
When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin.
Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.
Is the state of Israel morally justified in this crisis? Even though they were clearly attacked first (kidnapping of two soldiers), I would say no; they do not have the moral high ground. Charles' analogy above is flawed, because the state of Lebanon did not launch an unprovoked act of war against Israel like the Japanese had against the US. It was a rogue element within Lebanon that started this crisis.
Hezbollah is not Lebanon. In fact, I'd say that Hezbollah is more Syria and Iran than it is Lebanon. Hezbollah should have been disarmed, according to UN resolution 1559, but was not. The international community lacked the foresight and the resolve to enforce this UN resolution (strange). Additionally, the Lebanese government didnt have the power to disarm Hezbollah itself. That is because Hezbollah is more powerful than the Lebanese Army, thanks to generous Iranian arms support.
So yes, Israel was attacked first. But by the Lebanese state? No. The Lebanese aren't responsible for Hezbollah's actions. If we want someone to blame, we can look to the UN, Iran, or Syria. Meanwhile hundreds of Lebanese civilians are dead, hundreds of thousands are displaced, and billions of dollars of damage has been done to Lebanese infrastructure. All of this has happened to these people, and they really had no control over it.
The only moral argument Israel has going for it is that perhaps 40% of Lebanese are Shiite Muslim and so they "support Hezbollah", therefore their action is justified. Well, Hezbollah may be popular, but if I had to put money on it, I'd wager that the vast majority of those Shiite Muslims want peace. I'm sorry, wanted peace.
Morality aside, in my last post I pointed out that Israel's actions were strategically stupid. I stand by that. It should be well known to Israelis of all people that their policy in the middle east is inexorably tied to our own. Right now, we the USA are tied up in Iraq, and are still in Afghanistan. The Israelis themselves were/are fighting Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza. We're also trying to contain Iran. We were fighting on four fronts between the two of us. Why would Israel go and open up a 5th front in Lebanon? Do we really need to galvanize worldwide opinion against us at such a crucial time? Did our troops in Iraq really need the majority Shiites all riled up because of what was happening in Lebanon? And what have we learned about unilateral over-reactions in response to terrorists? Apparently, nothing.
And so here we are. Israel certainly doesnt have the moral high ground; its neutral if anything. Strategically, this was the biggest mistake since Iraq. And these are things I would think while assuming Israel would still accomplish its main goal of severely crippling Hezbollah. It is not clear at all right now whether that will even happen. A stalemate here would be a victory for Hezbollah and a defeat for Israel. That would be the worst foreign policy disaster...possibly in Israeli history. Certainly, the peace process...at least what was left of it, was set back 1-2 decades.
Perhaps the Americans and Israelis should stop electing leaders that lack military experience yet are overly enthusiastic about using their nation's military to solve problems. General Powell was the only man in the Bush administration that knew anything about war, and he was against the invasion of Iraq. If only Ariel Sharon wasn't in a coma, Israel wouldn't be in their predicament, either.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The Israelis should learn from the Indians
The Indians have done things right. In response to the terrorist attacks, which were horrific, they didn't immediately condemn Pakistan and start bombing it. That would have made matters worse, and in fact erased all of the hard earned peace advances that had been made between the two nations. Additionally, this strategy gives India considerable moral credibility. To be attacked in such a violent manner, only to turn the other cheek, is quite commendable. Certainly, such restraint will garnish enormous respect from more moderate Muslims in both Pakistan and India.
When you consider that the Pakistani government doesn't have complete control of all of the Islamists, India's response looks even more intelligent. And yet the situation is very similar in the Middle East. The Lebanese State certainly doesn't have complete control over its more extreme elements. The Israeli over-reaction to a terrorists' groups provokation is a huge mistake. They should have done nothing, instead turning to the international community and said "See, look what Hizbullah has done? We are the victim!".
The Israeli reaction recently to Palestinian provokation has also been too elaborate. When Palestinians fire Qassam rockets into Israel, the Israelis should respond by targeting the launch site with heavy artillery bombardment, nothing more, nothing less. Sending tanks, airstrikes, etc is simply an over-reaction.
And now, the Israelis have painted themselves to the world as the aggressor. There is a time and a place for massive military action; a knee jerk response to extremists is not that time. If nothing else, Israel should have issued Lebanon an ultimatum demanding the return of their soldiers.
These recent weeks, the Israelis have lost much of the moral credibility that they had gained recently in my eyes. It was exactly the same with the USA. After 9/11, the USA was the victim; Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was an over-reaction, and thus the USA became the aggressor. If there is anything the West needs to learn in fighting terrorism, it is the folly of an over-reaction in response.
When you consider that the Pakistani government doesn't have complete control of all of the Islamists, India's response looks even more intelligent. And yet the situation is very similar in the Middle East. The Lebanese State certainly doesn't have complete control over its more extreme elements. The Israeli over-reaction to a terrorists' groups provokation is a huge mistake. They should have done nothing, instead turning to the international community and said "See, look what Hizbullah has done? We are the victim!".
The Israeli reaction recently to Palestinian provokation has also been too elaborate. When Palestinians fire Qassam rockets into Israel, the Israelis should respond by targeting the launch site with heavy artillery bombardment, nothing more, nothing less. Sending tanks, airstrikes, etc is simply an over-reaction.
And now, the Israelis have painted themselves to the world as the aggressor. There is a time and a place for massive military action; a knee jerk response to extremists is not that time. If nothing else, Israel should have issued Lebanon an ultimatum demanding the return of their soldiers.
These recent weeks, the Israelis have lost much of the moral credibility that they had gained recently in my eyes. It was exactly the same with the USA. After 9/11, the USA was the victim; Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was an over-reaction, and thus the USA became the aggressor. If there is anything the West needs to learn in fighting terrorism, it is the folly of an over-reaction in response.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
A partner for negotiation?
According to this article by Al Jazeera, there are 11 insurgency groups that are willing to negotiate with the new Iraqi government. I don't know ultimately what their intentions are, but it is a relief of sorts to see that the insurgency has some order and structure to it. You couldn't hope for much improvement if the insurgency was just hundreds of tiny cells working independently; but larger groups (possibly only 20 or so) can be negotiated with.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Going on vacation
I'm going to be travelling around Europe for 6 weeks or so. You can read about the journey here. I'll likely keep updating this blog while I'm there. Maybe I'll get a new perspective on things from my travels.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Before the War
After Afghanistan, the winds of war were beginning to blow through Iraq. What were my thoughts before the invasion? I just stumbled across something I'd written on October 8th, 2002.
"Bush and his cronies are exaggerating the threat that Saddam poses. The international community isnt buying it, and thats why none of them, save Canada and Britain (?) have joined our little coalition. Rumsfeld claimed that Turkey was already signed up, but thats not true. Turkey is only going with us if the UN says its cool.
Bush also has been manipulating things, when he's been saying that bin Laden and friends are working with Saddam. (There was) a senior Al Qaeda (operative) in Baghdad but there is NO evidence that he was there to meet with Saddam, only convienient speculation.
Killing more Muslims and renewing the hatred that Middle Eastern peoples feel towards America is just going to create a new generation of terrorists; ones that will have ready access to weapons of mass destruction."
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I would today draw those same conclusions. I was slanted towards isolationism back then, but I've since become an ardent interventionalist.
Regardless, at the end of the day the question of "yes" or "no" concerning the war was irrelevant; nothing is so black and white. True in those days I was against the war. However, I recognized that there were some legitimately good reasons to invade. To put numbers on it, I used to say that I was 55% against the war, 45% for it.
Perhaps the one thing that nobody anticipated would be the incompetence of the Bush administration in the handling of the war. Clearly Bush and the right was determined to go to war with Iraq. Its a shame, being forced to that end, that we couldn't have at least done the job right.
"Bush and his cronies are exaggerating the threat that Saddam poses. The international community isnt buying it, and thats why none of them, save Canada and Britain (?) have joined our little coalition. Rumsfeld claimed that Turkey was already signed up, but thats not true. Turkey is only going with us if the UN says its cool.
Bush also has been manipulating things, when he's been saying that bin Laden and friends are working with Saddam. (There was) a senior Al Qaeda (operative) in Baghdad but there is NO evidence that he was there to meet with Saddam, only convienient speculation.
Killing more Muslims and renewing the hatred that Middle Eastern peoples feel towards America is just going to create a new generation of terrorists; ones that will have ready access to weapons of mass destruction."
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I would today draw those same conclusions. I was slanted towards isolationism back then, but I've since become an ardent interventionalist.
Regardless, at the end of the day the question of "yes" or "no" concerning the war was irrelevant; nothing is so black and white. True in those days I was against the war. However, I recognized that there were some legitimately good reasons to invade. To put numbers on it, I used to say that I was 55% against the war, 45% for it.
Perhaps the one thing that nobody anticipated would be the incompetence of the Bush administration in the handling of the war. Clearly Bush and the right was determined to go to war with Iraq. Its a shame, being forced to that end, that we couldn't have at least done the job right.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Goal! World Cup 1; Sharia 0.
In Somalia, the US has been (probably) financing a group of warlords that call themselves the secular anti-terrorism alliance for peace, or some bs title along those lines. These men are criminals and thugs, nothing more. In fact, we fought against some of them before (Black Hawk Down). But now we have bigger fish to fry. The reason we are backing these secular warlords is so they can fight against another group of warlords calling themselves the Islamic Courts. The Islamists want to impose Sharia (Islamic Law) on Somalia, Taliban style.
First I'd like to say that I don't support our government in the funding of these secular warlords. The people of Somalia have had it extremely bad for the last couple decades. Who are we to forment more civil unrest and more war? I don't want another Taliban government popping up again, but the West hasn't been able to offer the Somalis anything better. I think it would be best if the Somalis at least gained peace under the Islamic Courts, and the US applied pressure to the Islamists so that they wouldn't shelter terrorists. It isn't unrealistic to think they'd cooperate with us - they saw what happened to the Taliban.
Now it seems that the Islamic Courts are winning the war anyways. A week or so ago, they captured Mogadishu. Predictably, the Islamic Courts militias imposed Islamic Law on the people there. Among the many things that are banned, Western television is right at the top of the list. So when a bunch of Somalis were watching the World Cup, the militiamen cut the power to the TVs. Riots ensued. How incredible is the power of the World Cup? "Repress our freedom of speech! Force us to grow beards! Turn our women into domestic slaves! But god damnit, when you prevent us from watching the World Cup, you crossed the line!"
By now this is old news, but Zarqawi was killed. The morning that the news story broke, I remember walking to lab and thinking that the world physically felt like a better place. I can begin to understand what Americans, Brits, and Russians must have felt like when they received word of Hitler's demise. Men like Zarqawi put a permanent aura of hopelessness and evil over the world. Things simply cannot be right in the world with men like that still alive. So congratulations to the US military for doing humanity a big favor. Unfortunately, it won't do much to the insurgency from a logistics point of view. Al Qaeda was already pretty alienated in Iraq; the majority of the insurgents are secular Sunni Iraqis. It is however, a symbolic blow to insurgents and terrorists. Simultaneously it is a morale boost - one that Americans and Iraqis needed very badly. I certainly did.
Finally, the Iraqi Prime Minister named his picks for the Ministries of Interior and Defense. This is a very big deal, because a big complaint of the insurgents is that the Shiite Interior Minister is running death squads (which they are) targeting Sunnis. The new Interior minister is a Shiite again, but was in Saddams army and evidently is somewhat trusted by Sunnis. The Ministry of Defense (army) was given to a Sunni, which will hopefully make the alienated Sunni insurgents feel like they are a part of the new government. Only time will tell if these two appointees can reduce the violence, which is the #1 goal in Iraq right now.
Its a shame that the Iraqis don't have a World Cup team. I honestly believe if an Iraqi soccer team was able to win the World Cup, the entire country would unite overnight.
First I'd like to say that I don't support our government in the funding of these secular warlords. The people of Somalia have had it extremely bad for the last couple decades. Who are we to forment more civil unrest and more war? I don't want another Taliban government popping up again, but the West hasn't been able to offer the Somalis anything better. I think it would be best if the Somalis at least gained peace under the Islamic Courts, and the US applied pressure to the Islamists so that they wouldn't shelter terrorists. It isn't unrealistic to think they'd cooperate with us - they saw what happened to the Taliban.
Now it seems that the Islamic Courts are winning the war anyways. A week or so ago, they captured Mogadishu. Predictably, the Islamic Courts militias imposed Islamic Law on the people there. Among the many things that are banned, Western television is right at the top of the list. So when a bunch of Somalis were watching the World Cup, the militiamen cut the power to the TVs. Riots ensued. How incredible is the power of the World Cup? "Repress our freedom of speech! Force us to grow beards! Turn our women into domestic slaves! But god damnit, when you prevent us from watching the World Cup, you crossed the line!"
By now this is old news, but Zarqawi was killed. The morning that the news story broke, I remember walking to lab and thinking that the world physically felt like a better place. I can begin to understand what Americans, Brits, and Russians must have felt like when they received word of Hitler's demise. Men like Zarqawi put a permanent aura of hopelessness and evil over the world. Things simply cannot be right in the world with men like that still alive. So congratulations to the US military for doing humanity a big favor. Unfortunately, it won't do much to the insurgency from a logistics point of view. Al Qaeda was already pretty alienated in Iraq; the majority of the insurgents are secular Sunni Iraqis. It is however, a symbolic blow to insurgents and terrorists. Simultaneously it is a morale boost - one that Americans and Iraqis needed very badly. I certainly did.
Finally, the Iraqi Prime Minister named his picks for the Ministries of Interior and Defense. This is a very big deal, because a big complaint of the insurgents is that the Shiite Interior Minister is running death squads (which they are) targeting Sunnis. The new Interior minister is a Shiite again, but was in Saddams army and evidently is somewhat trusted by Sunnis. The Ministry of Defense (army) was given to a Sunni, which will hopefully make the alienated Sunni insurgents feel like they are a part of the new government. Only time will tell if these two appointees can reduce the violence, which is the #1 goal in Iraq right now.
Its a shame that the Iraqis don't have a World Cup team. I honestly believe if an Iraqi soccer team was able to win the World Cup, the entire country would unite overnight.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Unilaterally setting borders.
From Al Jazeera:
On Tuesday, the White House signalled a policy shift by giving unexpected backing to Israel's plan to unilaterally set its borders with the Palestinians should their new Hamas leaders refuse to disarm and renounce their call for Israel's destruction.
The PA is on the verge of financial collapse. The Palestinians are on the brink of a civil war. The people are suffering. Israel is planning to unilaterally set their final borders. And still, Hamas clings to their despicable and violent ways. You can't really blame Israel for this action, should they take it. There is no partner with which to forward the piece process.
But still, I feel great pity for the Palestinian people, who have been manipulated all along. It is they who will continue to suffer because their leaders refuse to let go of their hate. Neighboring governments won't be much help either; they of course have always known that the Palestinians are more useful if they are suffering. It makes for a convenient scapegoat with which to distract their populations from their own failures.
On Tuesday, the White House signalled a policy shift by giving unexpected backing to Israel's plan to unilaterally set its borders with the Palestinians should their new Hamas leaders refuse to disarm and renounce their call for Israel's destruction.
The PA is on the verge of financial collapse. The Palestinians are on the brink of a civil war. The people are suffering. Israel is planning to unilaterally set their final borders. And still, Hamas clings to their despicable and violent ways. You can't really blame Israel for this action, should they take it. There is no partner with which to forward the piece process.
But still, I feel great pity for the Palestinian people, who have been manipulated all along. It is they who will continue to suffer because their leaders refuse to let go of their hate. Neighboring governments won't be much help either; they of course have always known that the Palestinians are more useful if they are suffering. It makes for a convenient scapegoat with which to distract their populations from their own failures.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
What does this accomplish?
Juan Cole's Critique of US Policy in Iraq. First, some of my own thoughts on some selected portions.
Bush Administration policies in Iraq have largely been a failure. It has created a failed state in that country, which is in flames and seething with new religious and ethnic nationalist passions of a sort never before seen on this scale in modern Iraqi history. The severe instability in Iraq threatens the peace and security of the entire region, and could easily ignite a regional guerrilla war that might well affect petroleum exports from the Oil Gulf and hence the health of the world economy.
The rivalries between Shia and Sunni Iraqis are not new. In fact, a civil war was bound to happen in that country. Saddam was going to die someday, and the Baath Party's iron grip on power was going to weaken eventually, just like Stalin's did. The US has done a lot of things, but don't pretend we created the rivalry between Sunnis and Shiites.
The inauguration of a new Iraqi government was marred by the enormous amount of time it took to form it (5 months!), by open US imperial intervention in the choice of prime minister and in other negotiations...
Wow, you mean to tell me that a brand new democracy, in a country that was previously run by a Stalinist dictator, that is on the verge of a civil war, had some problems negotiating?? You dont say! True, the US ambassador urged the Iraqis to pick a new PM to get the ball rolling; to move the political process forward. Call it imperialist, but thats really an unwarranted abuse of a stigmatized word.
The new parliament is virtually hung, and Prime Minister al-Maliki governs as a minority prime minister, being able to count on less than 115 MPs from his own party, in a parliament with 275 members. He is therefore hostage to the Kurds, who want to move Iraq in the direction of having a very weak central government, a degree of provincial autonomy unknown in any other country in the world, and who want to unilaterally annex a fourth province, oil-rich Kirkuk, to their regional confederacy, despite the violent opposition of Kirkuk's Turkmen and Arab populations to being Kurdicized.
Maybe the Kurds living in Kirkuk had opposition to being kicked out of their city and forced to flee to the north during the 1980s under Saddam's plan to Arabize Kurdistan? What I don't understand is how Juan Cole can be so adamant about giving the Palestinians back the land that the Israelis 'stole' 40 years ago, and could care less about giving back to the Kurds land that was stolen only 20 years ago.
The main US military tactic still appears to be search and destroy, a way of proceeding guaranteed to extend the scope and popularity of the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. The guerrillas appear more well-organized, determined, and effective than ever, and no lasting and effective progress appears to have been made in counter-insurgency anywhere in the Sunni Arab heartland. The human toll of the war has been deeply depressing. The number of Iraqi dead in the war and its aftermath (killed in political violence by any side) cannot be estimated, but certainly is over 100,000 and could easily be more. The 30,000 figure often cited comes from counts of reports of deaths in Western wire services, which are demonstrably a fraction of the true total. None of the nearly 1,000 Iraqis assassinated in Basra during the past month, possibly with police involvement, appears in such statistics.
The human toll of Saddam's rule was deeply depressing. Hundreds of thousands of Shia and Kurds murdered. 1.5 million dead, including 500 thousand children, over the course of 10 years because Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN.
Despite what Juan says, progress has been made. The Iraqi Army is ever more capable of fighting the insurgency; even captured memos written by insurgents reveal this. The insurgents complain that they are unable to actually hold any territory. They are only capable of causing local violence; kidnapping and blowing things up. A big deal, but not a threat to the existence of the government. The US needs to remain in Iraq, to give the Iraqi government a chance to sort things out for themselves.
The prospect lies before us of years, perhaps decades of instability in the Gulf and eastern reaches of the Middle East. There is a danger of it doubling and tripling our gasoline prices. There is a danger of it forming a matrix and a school for anti-US terrorism for years to come. Are people in Fallujah, Tal Afar and Ramadi really ever going to forgive us?
Sure, Iraq was stable before. Tends to happen when you have one of the most brutally repressive dictators in history in charge of things. And the people in Fallujah, Tal Afar, and Ramadi didn't have to choose violence. There are peaceful ways to fight an occupation Juan - don't pretend there aren't.
The Bush administration has pushed us all out onto a tightrope in Iraq, 60 feet up and without a net.
Congratulations Juan. You've restated one of the most obvious facts about the world today - that the Bush administration has messed up royally in Iraq. Nobody denies that anymore. This is what I don't understand about people in this country that are obviously biased to the left. What do you think you are proving by stating the obvious? Are you just sticking out your tongue at the right and saying "nah nah nah I told you so?"?
I was against the war in Iraq. I thought the invasion was a very bad idea, for various reasons. I think Bush is a complete moron. Despite all of these things, I don't want to see the Iraqi government fail (which would be equivalent to a US failure). I don't want to abandon all hope of victory just because things are looking grim. You know, at the end of the day, the vast majority of the things Juan has said in his post are right. But so what? They dont help a damn thing. He doesn't offer any suggestions as to how we could improve our strategy - he just points out when we make mistakes; a habit not uncommon among the left in this country. They just knock everything we've done, even the little bit that is undeniably good, and hope enough of us buy into their pessimistic view that we pack up and leave Iraq. Just in time so that the left can rally us to send our forces to restore order in another oil rich Muslim nation - Sudan. The concept must not be such a bad one, so long as Bush can never get the credit for it.
Juan may be proven right. The Iraqi government may fail to produce any positive change. The US would eventually be forced to withdraw, and Iraq might then collapse into civil war. And then years from now, we would all know that Bush's adventure was 100% a mistake; and Juan can finally sit back and say "I told you so".
But things are still up in the air, whether or not liberals might admit it. There is still great hope that the Iraqi government could advance the political process enough to at least be in a position where it can control the country on its own, and slowly but surely improve the situation from there. For that government to even have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing its monumental task, its going to need America's help for a couple more years.
Juan wonders whether or not the people in a few particularly violent cities will ever forgive us for what we've done. The vast majority of Iraqis have embraced America's democratic project. I am more concerned with whether *they* will ever forgive us, were we abandon them to jihadists and years of bloody civil war, if we could have prevented such an outcome.
Bush Administration policies in Iraq have largely been a failure. It has created a failed state in that country, which is in flames and seething with new religious and ethnic nationalist passions of a sort never before seen on this scale in modern Iraqi history. The severe instability in Iraq threatens the peace and security of the entire region, and could easily ignite a regional guerrilla war that might well affect petroleum exports from the Oil Gulf and hence the health of the world economy.
The rivalries between Shia and Sunni Iraqis are not new. In fact, a civil war was bound to happen in that country. Saddam was going to die someday, and the Baath Party's iron grip on power was going to weaken eventually, just like Stalin's did. The US has done a lot of things, but don't pretend we created the rivalry between Sunnis and Shiites.
The inauguration of a new Iraqi government was marred by the enormous amount of time it took to form it (5 months!), by open US imperial intervention in the choice of prime minister and in other negotiations...
Wow, you mean to tell me that a brand new democracy, in a country that was previously run by a Stalinist dictator, that is on the verge of a civil war, had some problems negotiating?? You dont say! True, the US ambassador urged the Iraqis to pick a new PM to get the ball rolling; to move the political process forward. Call it imperialist, but thats really an unwarranted abuse of a stigmatized word.
The new parliament is virtually hung, and Prime Minister al-Maliki governs as a minority prime minister, being able to count on less than 115 MPs from his own party, in a parliament with 275 members. He is therefore hostage to the Kurds, who want to move Iraq in the direction of having a very weak central government, a degree of provincial autonomy unknown in any other country in the world, and who want to unilaterally annex a fourth province, oil-rich Kirkuk, to their regional confederacy, despite the violent opposition of Kirkuk's Turkmen and Arab populations to being Kurdicized.
Maybe the Kurds living in Kirkuk had opposition to being kicked out of their city and forced to flee to the north during the 1980s under Saddam's plan to Arabize Kurdistan? What I don't understand is how Juan Cole can be so adamant about giving the Palestinians back the land that the Israelis 'stole' 40 years ago, and could care less about giving back to the Kurds land that was stolen only 20 years ago.
The main US military tactic still appears to be search and destroy, a way of proceeding guaranteed to extend the scope and popularity of the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. The guerrillas appear more well-organized, determined, and effective than ever, and no lasting and effective progress appears to have been made in counter-insurgency anywhere in the Sunni Arab heartland. The human toll of the war has been deeply depressing. The number of Iraqi dead in the war and its aftermath (killed in political violence by any side) cannot be estimated, but certainly is over 100,000 and could easily be more. The 30,000 figure often cited comes from counts of reports of deaths in Western wire services, which are demonstrably a fraction of the true total. None of the nearly 1,000 Iraqis assassinated in Basra during the past month, possibly with police involvement, appears in such statistics.
The human toll of Saddam's rule was deeply depressing. Hundreds of thousands of Shia and Kurds murdered. 1.5 million dead, including 500 thousand children, over the course of 10 years because Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN.
Despite what Juan says, progress has been made. The Iraqi Army is ever more capable of fighting the insurgency; even captured memos written by insurgents reveal this. The insurgents complain that they are unable to actually hold any territory. They are only capable of causing local violence; kidnapping and blowing things up. A big deal, but not a threat to the existence of the government. The US needs to remain in Iraq, to give the Iraqi government a chance to sort things out for themselves.
The prospect lies before us of years, perhaps decades of instability in the Gulf and eastern reaches of the Middle East. There is a danger of it doubling and tripling our gasoline prices. There is a danger of it forming a matrix and a school for anti-US terrorism for years to come. Are people in Fallujah, Tal Afar and Ramadi really ever going to forgive us?
Sure, Iraq was stable before. Tends to happen when you have one of the most brutally repressive dictators in history in charge of things. And the people in Fallujah, Tal Afar, and Ramadi didn't have to choose violence. There are peaceful ways to fight an occupation Juan - don't pretend there aren't.
The Bush administration has pushed us all out onto a tightrope in Iraq, 60 feet up and without a net.
Congratulations Juan. You've restated one of the most obvious facts about the world today - that the Bush administration has messed up royally in Iraq. Nobody denies that anymore. This is what I don't understand about people in this country that are obviously biased to the left. What do you think you are proving by stating the obvious? Are you just sticking out your tongue at the right and saying "nah nah nah I told you so?"?
I was against the war in Iraq. I thought the invasion was a very bad idea, for various reasons. I think Bush is a complete moron. Despite all of these things, I don't want to see the Iraqi government fail (which would be equivalent to a US failure). I don't want to abandon all hope of victory just because things are looking grim. You know, at the end of the day, the vast majority of the things Juan has said in his post are right. But so what? They dont help a damn thing. He doesn't offer any suggestions as to how we could improve our strategy - he just points out when we make mistakes; a habit not uncommon among the left in this country. They just knock everything we've done, even the little bit that is undeniably good, and hope enough of us buy into their pessimistic view that we pack up and leave Iraq. Just in time so that the left can rally us to send our forces to restore order in another oil rich Muslim nation - Sudan. The concept must not be such a bad one, so long as Bush can never get the credit for it.
Juan may be proven right. The Iraqi government may fail to produce any positive change. The US would eventually be forced to withdraw, and Iraq might then collapse into civil war. And then years from now, we would all know that Bush's adventure was 100% a mistake; and Juan can finally sit back and say "I told you so".
But things are still up in the air, whether or not liberals might admit it. There is still great hope that the Iraqi government could advance the political process enough to at least be in a position where it can control the country on its own, and slowly but surely improve the situation from there. For that government to even have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing its monumental task, its going to need America's help for a couple more years.
Juan wonders whether or not the people in a few particularly violent cities will ever forgive us for what we've done. The vast majority of Iraqis have embraced America's democratic project. I am more concerned with whether *they* will ever forgive us, were we abandon them to jihadists and years of bloody civil war, if we could have prevented such an outcome.
MAD worked once; we might have gotten lucky.
Many people are saying that the potential Iranian nuclear threat is exaggerated. These people have suggested that even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, they could never use them because of the MAD (mutually assured destruction) principle. They couldn't be more wrong. Obviously, it is unlikely that the Iranians would fire nuclear-tipped missiles directly from Iran at targets in Israel or the US. However, there are two very realistic scenarios in which a nuclear war could still be started.
The scenario probably on most Americans' minds is one in which the Iranians pass off nuclear weapons to terrorists. In one scenario, the fanatical Iranian leadership could directly arm Hezbollah or some other group. Alternatively, a group of senior Iranian military commanders might act unilaterally to steal a nuclear weapon and pass it off to a terrorist group. The terrorists then float the nuclear weapon into Tel Aviv harbor, detonate, and kill hundreds of thousands of people. Nuclear-armed Israel responds. WW3 begins.
Even if you believe that the Iranian government wouldn't be so foolish as to pass off nukes to terrorists, or that nukes are impossible to steal, there is still serious risk of nuclear war if Iran gets nuclear weapons. That risk comes from the potential failure of MAD to deter a nuclear war. It is true that MAD saved us from war with the Soviet Union. Two points are noteworthy here.
1) To function properly, MAD requires that both sides of the prospective war be rational and deterrable. Can we expect a fanatical theocratic government to behave as rationally as an atheistic communist government?
2) MAD almost failed to prevent war between the US and USSR on multiple occasions. Read about Stanislav Petrov and Vasili Arkhipov. Both of these men were Soviet military commanders that single-handedly prevented WW3. Now imagine a hypothetical scenario. Replace both of these men with highly religious Iranian commanders. Instead of the USA being the enemy, make it Israel. Do you still have faith that MAD will work to prevent nuclear war?
As I recently wrote, military force against Iran still is not a good option. However, people need to recognize the Iranian threat and take it very seriously. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that just because the Iraqi threat was exaggerated, the Iranian one is too. Iran needs to be internationally isolated and closely watched until it gives up its nuclear ambitions.
The scenario probably on most Americans' minds is one in which the Iranians pass off nuclear weapons to terrorists. In one scenario, the fanatical Iranian leadership could directly arm Hezbollah or some other group. Alternatively, a group of senior Iranian military commanders might act unilaterally to steal a nuclear weapon and pass it off to a terrorist group. The terrorists then float the nuclear weapon into Tel Aviv harbor, detonate, and kill hundreds of thousands of people. Nuclear-armed Israel responds. WW3 begins.
Even if you believe that the Iranian government wouldn't be so foolish as to pass off nukes to terrorists, or that nukes are impossible to steal, there is still serious risk of nuclear war if Iran gets nuclear weapons. That risk comes from the potential failure of MAD to deter a nuclear war. It is true that MAD saved us from war with the Soviet Union. Two points are noteworthy here.
1) To function properly, MAD requires that both sides of the prospective war be rational and deterrable. Can we expect a fanatical theocratic government to behave as rationally as an atheistic communist government?
2) MAD almost failed to prevent war between the US and USSR on multiple occasions. Read about Stanislav Petrov and Vasili Arkhipov. Both of these men were Soviet military commanders that single-handedly prevented WW3. Now imagine a hypothetical scenario. Replace both of these men with highly religious Iranian commanders. Instead of the USA being the enemy, make it Israel. Do you still have faith that MAD will work to prevent nuclear war?
As I recently wrote, military force against Iran still is not a good option. However, people need to recognize the Iranian threat and take it very seriously. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that just because the Iraqi threat was exaggerated, the Iranian one is too. Iran needs to be internationally isolated and closely watched until it gives up its nuclear ambitions.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Surprise, Al Qaeda is beaten.
An internal Al Qaeda document was captured in Iraq. It is translated and analyzed here. The situation for Al Qaeda in Iraq is fairly desperate.
And yet, that has been obvious for months. Just because Al Qaeda is beaten in Iraq doesn't mean our mission is accomplished. There is still a powerful insurgency comprised of native Sunni Arabs. There remains a high risk of outright civil war. This battle hasn't been won yet. So while I certainly loath those Americans who would portray the cause as lost and futile, some on the right who are trumpeting Al Qaeda's defeat as being equivalent to our victory are equally wrong.
It will all come down to the new Iraqi government. If they can negotiate compromises, and continue to draw Sunnis into the government, then this thing will work (albeit with violence continuing for years). Alternatively, failure of the Iraqi government to move forward could spell disaster for the entire mission.
One final point. I keep hearing people (from the anti-war left) claiming that the presence of American troops is driving the insurgency. This convenient position has no basis in reality. If the insurgents were really interested in removing foreign troops, they could do it politically, and they know it. They're fighting because they (Sunni Arabs) don't want to share power with the Shia or Kurds.
Right now, with 150,000 American troops and an ever stronger Iraqi military, the insurgents know they cannot win. They are hoping that the removal of the main power in Iraq (US troops) will give them their chance to take over. If American troops were to pull out, the sides would become fairly balanced; the fragile Iraqi government and military on one side, and the well trained and well armed Sunni insurgents on the other. That is a real civil war.
Now isn't the time to surrender. We need to give the new Iraqi government time to negotiate and work things out. If it fails, we bounce. But as long as it continues to move forward, we should be there to back it up.
And yet, that has been obvious for months. Just because Al Qaeda is beaten in Iraq doesn't mean our mission is accomplished. There is still a powerful insurgency comprised of native Sunni Arabs. There remains a high risk of outright civil war. This battle hasn't been won yet. So while I certainly loath those Americans who would portray the cause as lost and futile, some on the right who are trumpeting Al Qaeda's defeat as being equivalent to our victory are equally wrong.
It will all come down to the new Iraqi government. If they can negotiate compromises, and continue to draw Sunnis into the government, then this thing will work (albeit with violence continuing for years). Alternatively, failure of the Iraqi government to move forward could spell disaster for the entire mission.
One final point. I keep hearing people (from the anti-war left) claiming that the presence of American troops is driving the insurgency. This convenient position has no basis in reality. If the insurgents were really interested in removing foreign troops, they could do it politically, and they know it. They're fighting because they (Sunni Arabs) don't want to share power with the Shia or Kurds.
Right now, with 150,000 American troops and an ever stronger Iraqi military, the insurgents know they cannot win. They are hoping that the removal of the main power in Iraq (US troops) will give them their chance to take over. If American troops were to pull out, the sides would become fairly balanced; the fragile Iraqi government and military on one side, and the well trained and well armed Sunni insurgents on the other. That is a real civil war.
Now isn't the time to surrender. We need to give the new Iraqi government time to negotiate and work things out. If it fails, we bounce. But as long as it continues to move forward, we should be there to back it up.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Some good news.
From Aljazeera:
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani met with the reps of seven insurgent groups. He seems optimistic that he will be able to broker a deal to draw them away from the armed resistance. There are probably dozens of insurgent groups; still, if this turns out well, it may serve as an example for other groups to follow. Unfortunately, some groups will never bargain; see Al Qaeda and Saddam's ex henchmen. Those are problems that the Iraqi military will have to deal with for years.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani met with the reps of seven insurgent groups. He seems optimistic that he will be able to broker a deal to draw them away from the armed resistance. There are probably dozens of insurgent groups; still, if this turns out well, it may serve as an example for other groups to follow. Unfortunately, some groups will never bargain; see Al Qaeda and Saddam's ex henchmen. Those are problems that the Iraqi military will have to deal with for years.
A decent Frenchman.
"In the two months after 9/11, the phobias and fallacies of traditional anti-Americanism massively intensified. The clumsiest of them was an attempt to justify Islamist terrorism by claiming that America has long been hostile to Islam. The United States' actions historically have been far less damaging to Muslims than those of Britain, France, or Russia. These European powers have conquered Muslim countries, occupied and indeed oppressed them over decades and even centuries. Americans have never colonized a Muslim nation. Americans evince no hostility toward Islam as such today; on the contrary, their interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, as well as the pressure exerted on the Macedonian government, were designed to defend Muslim minorities. And the U.S.-led coalition that removed the Iraqi army from Kuwait during the first Gulf War acted to defend a small Muslim country against a secular dictator who had used chemical weapons against Muslim Shiites in the south and Muslim Kurds in the north."
Very long, very interesting piece on European anti-Americanism. And I've had my own in the works for some time now...more later.
Very long, very interesting piece on European anti-Americanism. And I've had my own in the works for some time now...more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)