Juan Cole - Rewriting History

Juan Cole @ YearlyKos 2007:

Referring to his new book, and sounding quite pretentious: "Western invasions and occupations of Middle Eastern countries often haven't gone very well...this is not a new thing."

Later in the interview: "This (YearlyKos) group has been a major force for rethinking the early tone of the coverage of the Iraq situation. If you wanted to go back to 2003, and check who was saying what, you know, 95% of press commentary was of the cheer-leading sort. And it was the left bloggers who raised questions that began to see problems and who opposed the war in the first place."

Indeed, Juan - let us go back to 2003 and check who in fact was saying what.

"My mind and heart are, like those of so many Americans, focused on the Gulf and Iraq tonight. I am thinking about all those brave young men and women in the US and British armed forces whose lives are on the line, and send them my warm support. And I am thinking about all the innocent Iraqis in the line of fire, who fear what awaits them. I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides."

Juan Cole, 3/19/03

I once emailed Professor Cole, asking him about this quote. He said he had taken the position in question 'before he knew that Bush was incompetent'. His explanation doesn't satisfy me for two reasons.

1. Nothing in war is a certainty; a historian like Cole should know this better than anyone. It is reprehensible to cheer-lead the march to war and jump ship at the first time of trouble, as Cole did. After failing to stop Saddam's slaughter of the Shia and Kurdish rebels after the '91 war, did America not owe it to the Iraqi people to at least give their elected government a chance to succeed? Our invasion of Iraq opened the gates of hell; did we not have a moral obligation (not to mention strategic imperative) to help close them?

2. Cole constantly speaks retrospectively of reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda wasn't linked to Saddam, civil war was inevitable, "Western invasions of the Middle East don't go well". But even if Cole was wrong about Bush, he still should have known all of these things before the fact. He certainly pretends that he did.

I read Cole's blog regularly. He is almost as biased as Fox News, but to the opposite side. That being said, he still does know a lot, and so I will continue to read his blog (as much as I despise his incessant pessimism). Still, to see him pretend to have known all along what would happen in Iraq is too much for me to handle.

The least surprised I've been all day...

Regarding the next YouTube Debate, only two GOP candidates have agreed to do it: Ron Paul and John McCain. This isn't shocking to me. Paul and McCain will do fine in a debate with unscripted and tough questions, because neither gives politically correct answers - they give honest ones. Speaking truthfully and frankly requires no preparation, just conviction. McCain, for example, has been on the Daily Show many times; he has parried the best that Jon Stewart can throw at him.

McCain and Paul are the only two republican candidates I'd consider voting for, though it is likely that I'll have no such chance for either. The rest of the GOP candidates are garbage. I'm not even sure why Romney was ever considered a "front runner", and it has been especially entertaining as of late to watch everyone come to realize how overrated Guliani is. It doesn't surprise me that they don't want to be asked the difficult questions - they don't have good answers. Still, I predict that the risk of looking completely disconnected from the mainstream will force them to show up to the debate, even if they are loath to.

A last comment. I think, perhaps wishfully, that McCain is going to make a turnaround. He really is the only solid player that the GOP has at this point (enter Thompson?). If McCain changes his Iraq policy to something more reasonable to the general public, I think he will have a 'surge' of support. And why wouldn't he (change his Iraq policy)? The situation in that country a year from now is going to be vastly different than it is now.

Addendum

Why should we bomb Iran? The internal movement to bring down their government is intensifying (as it is here in the USA, incidentally). The Iranian government just beat up and arrested a bunch of students. We'll see that more and more. But not if we do the Ayatollahs a favor by uniting the people around the government after an air strike!

The Soviets supported the Vietcong, just as Iran supports Iraqi insurgents. We didn't bomb the USSR in response; furthermore, it didn't take an act of war to bring down the Soviet Union, a far greater oppressor and rival than tiny Iran. Lets keep up the containment, keep up the isolation, and their theocratic government will fall on its own. It took only 40 years to bring down the mighty Soviet Union, without a shot fired from our end. Its already been 30 years since the Iranian revolution. Their government doesn't have long.

Around the world in 500 words

Update on a whole bunch of things:

1. I really hope things settle down in Pakistan. Right now theres a standoff with some students in an important mosque. Depending on how Musharraf handles it, this thing could spiral out of control. Political instability in a nuclear-armed nation makes me somewhat uneasy. Not only that, but if an anti-American government was to come to power, we might as well pack up and quit Afghanistan.

2. Only a short time ago, I had outright dismissed the proposition that Bush would attack Iran. The idea is such that no rational individual would seriously be advocating it. For one, why would we? The Iranian government is on the ropes as it is. In fact, it is my belief that the Iranian government actually wants us to bomb them. They are in a huge mess, with the state of the economy, gasoline rationing (in IRAN!), and international isolation. The people are tired of it all. A bombing campaign would unite all of the people around that government, without accomplishing anything of note.

And yet, Bush suddenly scares me. Do we remember in 1998 when Bill Clinton randomly bombed Iraq as the news of his affair with Lewinsky was breaking? Well, Bush is in a similar position. His aides are going to court. Republicans are bailing on Iraq. 48% of Americans want him impeached, and above half want Cheney impeached. Hes like a wounded animal, looking for a way out. Desperation can lead to irrationality.

Congress should revoke his power to attack Iran unilaterally.

3. I can't believe that France elected a pro-American, right wing president. They certainly needed one. Hopefully he'll implement some much needed economic reform, but I disagree with his Turkey policy. He has stated that Turkey should never belong to the EU.

4. Speaking of whom. The Turkish military has massed 150,000 troops on the border of Iraq. They seem poised to invade Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) to chase PKK terrorists that have been hiding in Iraq. Not unlike the way Al Qaeda hid out in Afghanistan.

Kurdistan is the one success story we have in Iraq, and its about ready to be destroyed. There is absolutely no reason that we shouldn't be able to bring about a diplomatic solution to the crisis between the Turks and Kurds. It boggles my mind that its even an issue at this point. The Turks and the Kurds have both been important US allies for years now, and they rely on us as well (especially the Kurds). This one is a no-brainer, but is in my estimation the most serious crisis facing the region at this time. These groups are the only two examples of Muslim democracy in the entire world. Obviously, its extremely important that we ensure that they are both peaceful and prosperous.

5. The war in Iraq is over. My post-occupation plan would involve withdrawing some of the troops to Kurdistan (40k or so) and sending the rest home. This entire plan breaks down if point 4 isn't resolved soon. But from bases in Kurdistan, we can help contain the civil war in the south and can help fight Al Qaeda. And, when they are ready, we'll be there to help negotiate a peace between the warring Sunni and Shiite factions.

6. My presidential predictions were based on wishful thinking. McCain is getting creamed. Word on the street is Fred Thompson gets the GOP nod. I personally don't think the Dems are dumb enough to nominate Hillary (they do want to win the election, don't they?). I could be wrong, though. Edwards seems like the best pick, as much as I'd love to see Obama instead. The race factor might be too powerful. Still, those campaign finance results of Obama's were very impressive.

Total Scumbags

This is one of the most disgusting things I think I've ever seen. That a news outlet would presume to decide for us who won the debate is beyond arrogant. What is worse, even after winning the poll, those snakes suggested that Paul should not be allowed to debate again. Its been obvious to me for years that Fox News has been biased. I noticed it first in 2002; the debate on Fox News was when, not if, we should invade Iraq. But this latest thing goes beyond the relm of mere propaganda. It was a blatent attempt to subvert democracy. It was an attempt to forcibly alter the course of the electoral process by going above the heads of the American people. Luckily Paul made enough of an impact that they failed, but it still makes me extremely angry to have seen Republican party bosses try this stunt.

Ron Paul is getting serious support?

*** Update. Ron Paul discusses the recent debate, where he was in a tiff with Guliani. Everything Dr. Paul says is spot on. Guliani was made to look like a complete fool. This clip is a must see.

I am best described as a libertarian, so I enjoyed watching Ron Paul in the first Republican debate. But I haven't cited him as a favorite candidate because I assumed that he was the Ralph Nader of the Republican Party - loved by a small group of people but nationally unelectable. However, a Fox News poll showed him having significant support. Maybe we should take him more seriously? Andrew Sullivan seems to think so.

Well, I'd still say hes unelectable. But one can dream, right? Maybe he would be a good running mate? I'm looking at you, Senator McCain.

Attacking Kurdistan

There have been two truck bombs in Kurdistan in the last month. Kurdistan is the northern region of Iraq that has been largely autonomous since the first Gulf War. It is peaceful, politically unified, and its economy is booming. In other words, its the only success story of the entire campaign. What is the significance of these recent bombing attacks by insurgents? I can think of three possibilities.

1. These particular insurgents have no greater strategic objectives, and are just attacking targets of opportunity - there is no real significance to the attacks. This is a possibility. We can't assume that all of our enemies have ulterior motives to every attack. It would, however, definitely be a mistake to assume they don't. Hence the following two possibilities.

2. This is part of the Kurd-Arab dispute over Kirkuk. Kirkuk is a city sitting on top of a massive oil field. In the 1980s, Saddam kicked out all of the Kurds and settled Arabs in the area. Now the Kurds want their homes back. The city is ethnically diverse, like Baghdad, and is probably going to be fought over at some point or another. Yet, these bombings didn't happen in Kirkuk. Maybe the insurgents (probably Sunni Arabs) are sending the Kurds a message of what to expect in the future if they don't cede Kirkuk?

3. The insurgents are trying to influence the American government. This is what first came to my mind when I saw the news headline. Not many people are talking about "staying the course" anymore. The 'surge' appears to be failing. What is plan B? Some people are saying we could keep forces in Kurdistan, other people are saying we should get all US troops out of Iraq completely, including out of Kurdistan. Perhaps the insurgents are trying to strengthen the hand of the latter group of politicians. If Kurdistan can be portrayed as being instable like the rest of Iraq, then redeployment of US forces to the north looks like a less viable option.

We should redeploy to Kurdistan. Complete withdrawal would be a huge mistake.

It has become clear that we can't referee the civil war in Baghdad and the other Arab regions of Iraq. But there is no reason to not station a sizeable US force in Kurdistan, not unlike what we have in Afghanistan to chase the Taleban. From our position up north, we can do three major things. One, we can have a local base from which to chase Al Qaeda. Two, we can prevent invasion by Iraq's neighbors (Saudi Arabia and Iran in particular), helping to prevent a wider regional war. Three, and perhaps most importantly, we can negotiate a cease fire between the factions after the civil war has run its course a bit.

The last time you heard any politician talk about Iraq, what word was repeated more often than any other? Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Diplomacy. But to have any diplomatic leverage, you need to have force backing it up. Thats why nobody cares what Europe says anymore. The European Union has greater economic power than the US, but without anything hard to back it up, they are ignored. Having a force in Kurdistan gives the U.S. a huge amount of diplomatic leverage. We'll regret not having it, once the ethnic cleansing starts.

Making predictions 1.5 years out:

The straight-talk express, John McCain, gets the republican ticket. McCain beats Hillary if she gets the dem ticket. McCain loses to Obama if he gets the dem ticket. If the race came down to McCain vs Obama, I wouldn't need to vote. Well lets face it, I'm from Indiana so I dont *need* to vote anyway.

More elaboration when I'm done with finals. Just wanted it on the record!

Some nuclear perspective

Seriously, mutual assured destruction.

My diatribe against the global warming fuss: 10 reasons why I dont care.

1. The only thing capable of pulling the poorest 3,000,000,000 people out of poverty is global economic growth. While there is definitely some room to cut excesses, a lot of anti-warming propositions would neuter the global economy. We already have a high standard of living in the West, so apparently economic stagnation doesn't concern us.

2. Many are suggesting we begin to make the transition to biofuels. Biofuels are derived from crops. What happens when demand for farm products goes through the roof? The price of food goes up. That might be a good thing for Americans. It would be a bad thing for Africans.

3. Al Gore has shown us that one can lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle with the technology we have today. Irrelevant! Humans derive no satisfaction from emitting carbon dioxide (aside from respiration). We get satisfaction from using energy, which happens to be coupled to CO2 release in most cases. Al Gore with his millions has proven that he can be carbon neutral, but he has unfortunately revealed that he cannot cut his energy consumption. In fact, he requires 20 times the energy than the average American.

What does this mean? Al Gore is proof that you can't ask people to reduce their energy consumption. The challenge is to get them energy that doesn't come from buring fossil fuels. The only real option we have here is nuclear power on a much grander scale. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has opposed any expansion of our nuclear power sector. So what, do anti-warming crusaders expect the average American to cut their energy usage while Al Gore uses twenty times the norm? Not going to happen. People need to get serious about nuclear power, or there isn't even a chance!

4. No doubt, there is a lot of things we could do to streamline our energy consumption. More public transit, hybrid cars (nevermind the enormous energy costs in making them, or the environmentally destructive mining process to harvest the minerals for batteries), solar power. These things are at best delaying the inevitable, unless we come up with a miracle source of energy. Don't forget - regardless of what we do in the 1st world, the poor farmer in the Amazon is going to still need to choose whether to feed his family or burn down a forest. It would be awefully pompous for us here in the West to blame him for doing the latter.

5. Speaking of the third world. What if we in the West stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow? The price of oil, gas, etc would plummet, which means that people in the third world could afford to use more of it. The fossil fuels are going to get used, unless we start building nuclear power plants all over the world. Not that we have enough uranium for that sort of thing.

6. Disregarding the fact that we've all been wrong before, there are just too many unknowns with the warming hypothesis. How severe will the warming be? A few degrees might even be pleasant. How long do we have? If the answer is a few hundred or thousand years, who cares? Is it too late to stop it? Nancy Pelosi suggests that "the next ten years are crucial". That is total speculation on her part. Nobody could possibly know the consequences of inaction over a ten year period. In fact, its far more likely that we either have many years yet to turn the process around, or that its already too late to reverse what we've started. In either case, the panic is unwarranted.

7. Have people forgotten how policy in this country works? We are a reactive society, and we always have been. You would think that something as obvious as putting enough lifeboats on a cruise liner would be obvious, but it took the Titantic and 2000 dead to get it in our heads. You'd think that some airport security would be a no-brainer, but it took 9/11 to get that one going. You'd think that if levees are the only thing protecting your city from the ocean, maybe make sure they work? But Katrina came and went, and now we know better. I'm not usually a pessimist, but lets face it, we will never do anything serious about climate change until an iceberg slaps us in the face. Its fad, and it will pass. When's the last time you heard about bird flu? That threat is still lurking, and is definitely a bigger threat than global warming. The last serious flu pandemic killed 100 million people in 1920. Think about how many more people there are today, and how much faster everyone travels. Another pandemic could kill hundreds of millions, and it could happen next year.

8. Here is another reason to be pessimistic about countering global warming. The two biggest CO2 emitters, the USA and China, will be affected the least by warming, according to climate models. Actually, due to warming China may have increased productivity. Hmmm. Two hugely bloated bureaucracies face an enormous challenge with little incentive. Yes, lets be optimistic!

9. What species are we talking about here? We are talking about homo sapiens! Name a climate that we cant survive in. Name a situation we cant adapt to. Some of us, thousands of years ago, decided it would be a great idea to live on the ice caps in igloos, and others thought that the desert looked like fun. We are the most adaptable single species that this planet has ever produced. Sure a little climate change might shake things up, wash away a city here or there, cause a bunch of people to move inland a few miles. It'll likely happen over decades. We'll survive. Civilization will survive. Our cities are dirty anyway.

10. Humanity faces plenty of problems for which we can develop strategies that will actually produce tangible results. The third world continues to be ravaged by diseases like malaria, and yet we continue to outlaw DDT. Environmentalists will throw a fit when one discusses usage of DDT, but unfortunately I have moral qualms about valuing the lives of animals above humans. If it were their children dying of malaria, they might think differently. Hunger is still a major problem. The population explosion is an issue, and its a problem with only one cure - economic growth. Finally, a Middle Eastern nuclear arms-race is right up there at the top of my list of things we should be avoiding.

In short, why spend so much time and money, on solutions that may not work - for a problem that might not even be one?

After all of that, one might be surprised to learn that publicly, I'm to some extent supportive of the anti-warming campaign. I would like to see a great reduction in our use of petroleum in particular. There wouldn't *be* a war on terror if we weren't reliant on gasoline. I'm sick of American dollars going to Saudi Arabia, funding the most intolerant (Wahhabi) branch of Islam there is. I'm sick of American dollars funding Hugo Chavez' Boliviarian Socialism. Thus I would support some 'anti global warming' measures for purely geopolitical reasons.

We have the solutions right in front of us. The most obvious as I mentioned is nuclear power. Another fantastic solution has been put forth by economist Greg Mankiw: The Pigou Club. Alas, not a single politician will sign up. I really am an optimist - just read my Iraq posts if you don't believe me. But not about all of this.

A quick thought

Iran's actions don't strike me as those of a nation avoiding war. I wonder if their leaders are actually trying to provoke American airstrikes? Unless the US Air Force launched an all-out campaign, airstrikes wouldn't do much damage to the Iranian nuclear program. It would also strengthen the Iranian government, rallying the support of the people behind it in a nationalistic fervor. It also would galvanize world opinion in support of Iran. Therefore, the US should under almost no circumstances strike first blow in this potential conflict. We lose the moral high ground if we do.

There might be an interesting dynamic to consider if Britain decided to strike Iran alone pending a failure to return (or worse) the British prisoners. Iran would be in a pickle at that point, because it lacks serious capability to further retaliate against Britain. That is, British troops aren't in vulnerable spots like American troops, and London is out of range of Iranian missiles. Iran would not want to escalate a conflict with a secondary opponent, exposing itself and playing its few good cards, when its primary opponent (USA) is right around the corner waiting for it to slip up. Not saying I advocate Britain starting a war, but if it came down to it, I'd rather the British launch the strike unilaterally without the US getting directly involved. It would give the West the strategic initiative.

It will most likely be a non-issue, though. Iran abducted British sailors once a few years ago and returned them after some grandstanding. I'm sure it will do the same this time around.

"We don't need resistance if there is no occupation."

This quote from an official of the new Palestinian unity government. Arab states have all promised peace and normalised relations with Israel, if it only would withdraw to 1967 borders. The occupation would end, Palestinians would have a state, everyone is happy, problem solved. Unfortunately, reality isn't so simple. The problem is not that Israel refuses to withdraw to 1967 borders. That is a distraction. The problem is that Hamas, which leads the current government, would still not agree to a peace (by its own assertion) even if Israel withdrew to 1967 borders. Nor would Iran.

One needs to only look no farther than the Gaza Strip to realize that withdrawing to 1967 borders would not bring peace. Some time ago Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Since then, there has been a constant barrage of rocket fire from there into Israel. Even now, Hamas is fortifying the Gaza Strip with bunkers, rockets, and other equipment in the very same way that Hezbollah set up shop in southern Lebanon. The world is standing idly by while fanatics and terrorists in Gaza build a fortress right next to Israel.

There will be another war, and probably soon. Militants from Gaza will finally provoke Israel, which will invade and possibly reoccupy Gaza, just like what happened in southern Lebanon last summer. This will happen because Hamas (recently recognized by Norway, soon to be recognized by Russia and France) remains committed to the destruction of Israel through violent means. The difference is that this time, there will be many more casualties than there were in last summer's contest, because Gaza is far more densely populated than southern Lebanon.

Second post of the night!?

The Iraqis are expressing support of the "surge" plan to restore security to Iraq. The surge, thus far, has succeeded beyond what I expected. And we've only got 2 of 5 planned divisions deployed at this time. General Petraeus has claimed that he will need until the summer to be able to determine whether the plan will work or ultimately fail. Stop the political pandering in Washington and let this guy do his job! As many have pointed out, why did Congress unanimously confirm him as the new commander in Iraq if they weren't going to give him a chance to make progress?

As always, the key for success is political. There have already been some important steps in that direction (by Iraqi politicians). Heres hoping it continues.

A game that can be played by two

The Palestinian political groups, Fatah and Hamas, have agreed on a power-sharing government, having barely avoided civil war in the process. The international community (specifically, a "Quartet" of UN, US, EU, and Russia) had placed three demands on any such government for the resumption of aid. Renounce violence, recognize Israel, and honor past peace agreements. The new unity government, dominated by Hamas still (as it won the election), has failed on all three counts.

This really shouldn't have come as a shock. Aren't terrorists like Hamas by definition uncompromising, fanatical people? Even so, there has been some positive change. Fatah has some ministers in the government, and Hamas said it would "respect" past agreements (whatever that means). This unity government is at least a small step in the direction that we desire. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate for the United States and the Quartet in kind to also take a small step, towards the Palestinian government.

Right now, the United States has declared it will work with ministers in the government that are of Fatah. This is a good place to start. We should also not shy away from humanitarian and economic opportunities. Still, we need to continue to make it difficult for Hamas to accomplish anything on its agenda. Hamas should know that if it wants support from the USA, they need to be willing to meet us in the middle.

I especially oppose outright recognition of the government until they have made more serious concessions to the international community. Norway, France, and Russia are all moving to give Hamas everything it wants for nothing in return. Thats probably the worst way to get Hamas to compromise.

Update

My enthusiasm for Barack Obama has grown, and fortunately so has his poll data. He looks to be catching Hillary in most categories. I really don't have any particularly strong negative feelings towards Hillary. She is a politician, and like most politicians she doesn't really have firm convictions or principles. She does not impress me as a leader, however. At any rate, she is deeply dividing; personally I don't think she has a remote chance of winning a national election. Dems should root for her only if they want a Republican president in 08.

One reason in particular that I am more excited about Obama is from this interview of Obama in 2002, before the Iraq war. He asks a lot of rhetorical questions in this interview, which are eerily predictive about the situation on the ground in Iraq today. For example, he specifically asks what our long term committment in Iraq will be, and how will we prevent sectarian differences from tearing the country apart.

Towards the end Barack is asked whether he would have voted Yay or Nay to invade Iraq, if he could have done so. He responds that he would have went nay. As a friend pointed out, voting nay on the Iraq war resolution was an extremely dangerous position for a nationally aspiring politician to take. Hillary, of course, voted yay. As did many others, who did not take the time to understand what we were getting ourselves into. And that is how we ended up in the situation we are in today.

On a related note, from what I've been reading, the 'surge' policy for a security crackdown in Baghdad is actually working to some extent. I am less optimistic than I was, however. I'm reading a book called "The Shia Revival" by Vali Nasr, and what has become clear to me is that this Sunni-Shia sectarian rivalry is hundreds of years old. I'm not sure that any amount of US military power could fix this problem. It is likely that the armed groups are just taking a breather from the civil war and will resume as soon as we leave. Any success will depend first and foremost on political solutions. An important first step was the recent revision of Iraq's oil laws that will redistribute revenue more evenly.

Finally, I noticed the world stockmarkets taking a dive for the last few days. I read an interesting article that suggested that China could not survive an economic collapse, politically. The country would erupt in protests and civil disorder, and the non-Han areas would likely secede (Tibet, inner Mongolia, et cetera). There are always positive side effects of bad situations. A world economic collapse killing off communism once and for all doesn't sound like a bad thing. Additionally, the price of oil would plummet following a Chinese collapse. That would shut the mouths of petro-powered international assholes like Hugo Chavez and Iran's Ahmedinejad. Course, not needing their oil would have the same effect...

Courageous leadership, or political pandering?

Why was General Patraeus unanimously approved as our new commander in Iraq, if Democrats were going to pull the plug on the mission before we could even begin to have any success? And if they are deadset on withdrawal, why haven't Democrats started planning for what they are going to do in the aftermath of a hasty US pullout from Iraq? Are we going to partition the country? Withdraw to Kurdistan? Strike a deal with Iran or Syria? Does "pulling out" mean all 150,000 troops? Are we going to leave any of them to fight Al Qaeda? As Joe Biden pointed out, just "bringing home the troops" is not a plan or a strategy. It is a politically convenient and intellectually inane talking point.

One absolutely cannot discuss withdrawal without having a plan for it - and it better be a damn good one. The risks that would follow such a power vacuum in Iraq are enormous, and the Democrats aren't even beginning to acknowledge it, let alone discuss how to prevent a wider catastrophe. This is not Vietnam. This is not Vietnam. This is not Vietnam. There won't be a communist takeover and then peace once we leave. There will be far more violence. It is immoral and irresponsible to just plan on packing up and going home, leaving the region to implode in an orgy of ethnic cleansing, civil war, and regional conflict.

And now Hillary Clinton, one of those wise souls that voted for the Iraq war, and said a few weeks ago that she supported the 'surge', has started talking about a 90 day deadline to have troops out of Iraq. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that things can't get worse. Well, they can. And guess what? Its our responsibility to help fix it, whether we like it or not.

Don't even think about it.

I'd like to reiterate how strongly I would oppose a unilateral air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Some time ago, we sent a second carrier strike group to the gulf. A bit of sabre rattling, but not something to be alarmed about. In fact, I suspected that Bush's personality might come as an advantage in this standoff with Iran. Think about it - if Americans are worried whether Bush is going to bomb Iran, Iranians have got to be wondering more when than if its going to happen. In this game of diplomatic chicken that we seem to be playing, perhaps that might be the impetus that the Iranian leadership needs to negotiate a deal.

A strong position against Iran is very important. While Iranian support for Iraqi Shia insurgents is mostly exaggerated, Iran's support for Hezbollah is well documented. As we saw last summer, that proved to be a very destabilizing force in the region. I'm also very concerned with the Iranian nuclear pursuit, as I've written before. Not because I'm concerned that Iran will go and nuke Israel or even pass off nukes to terrorists (which is possible, but unlikely). The main risk is that Iranian nukes spark a regional arms race with the Gulf Arab states; Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular. A nuclear armed Middle East would be a disaster waiting to happen.

This all being said, a strike on Iran's nuclear sites would be a disaster. It would rally their people around the government at a time when Ahmedinejad is becoming less popular in Iran for his extreme rhetoric. The air strikes would probably do little, if any good. We set back the nuclear program for a couple of years, and then what? Iran could retaliate throughout the world; in Iraq, Europe, and America. If we think the Shia insurgency in Iraq is bad now, just wait till we bomb Iran. Its just not worth it, not yet anyways. If we must do something, we should impose an oil embargo with our Navy - prevent Iran from exporting any of its oil.

The reason I write this now is because I've just heard that Bush sent a 3rd carrier strike group to the Middle East, and now I'm nervous that Bush isn't bluffing. If legally possible, congress should pass legislation that would prevent Bush from striking Iran without congressional approval. And Americans need to speak up and make sure this President knows that we don't want another war.

Subverting Democracy

Fabricating Casus belli. I'll say it again - I'm not against impeachment.

Speaking of getting rid of Bush. My presidential picks are definitely between two men: John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain has been my favorite for years now. Even though hes been selling out to the right a bit lately (hey, everyone has to play the game), he is one of the most genuine and most capable leaders this country has. In the event that relations worldwide are deteriorating and war or confrontation looks likely, theres nobody that I'd rather have than McCain.

Lots of things could go wrong with the world, too. Things could spiral out of control with North Korea. There could be a confrontation with China over Taiwain. The violence in Iraq would result in a regional war with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et cetera. Russia has been becoming more...fascist, lately; some speak of a renewed cold war. Incidentally, Putin had some disparaging remarks about the US this week; McCain's rebuttal was very impressive.

However, if things between North Korea and Iran have cooled down, and Iraq's violence is localized to that nation only, I'd support Barack Obama. This nation's image worldwide has been horribly damaged, and we need a salesman. Someone charismatic and appealing, to again sell America to the rest of the world. Electing an ethnic minority Democrat would send a positive message to Europe and to our own minorities. The election of B. Hussein Obama might suggest to the Arab and Muslim world that American's aren't as Islamophobic as they might think. And having an African president would go a long way towards developing great partnerships with African nations.

Besides, who else can compete? Hillary Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq but now has no ideas on how to fix it? She is so divisive, and calculating. What about Mitt Romney? A Mormon who is catering to the far-Christian right; where do I sign up!? Rudi Giuliani? Name one thing he has done other than be mayor of NY during 9/11. I'm not saying hes a bad guy, but that hes overrated. John Edwards? As Joe Biden pointed out, he knows nothing about Iraq and how to fix it. Incidentally, Joe Biden is the other foreign policy guru that I could support, except that I dont agree with his idea to partition Iraq (nor do any Iraqis or Arabs for that matter). And lets face it, the Democrat race is a two person contest between Hillary and Obama.

So there it is. McCain or Obama. Nobody else measures up.

John Kerry sells out America.

Recently John Kerry has been abroad, chatting it up with Iran's leadership about the faults of America. For doing so, I believe he is a scumbag of the lowest order, and he is making the world a less safe place by doing so. I dont mind criticism of the US government, of course. God knows, they deserve it. But when abroad, especially when speaking to the leadership of a rogue state like Iran, such action is extremely counterproductive. Not to mention, contrary to American political tradition.

We are having a confrontation with Iran at this very instant. Right now, it is a war of words and of propaganda; it should remain that way. To win this war of words, we must convince the world, the Iranian people, and the Iranian leadership that a nuclear armed Iran simply cannot come to be. I've already posted extensively as to why not.

Sure, the US government has faults! But so does the Iranian government. Are Iranian officals going to come to the US and admit theirs as John Kerry has ours? Hell no! And theirs are many. First and foremost, publicly calling for the eradication of a UN member state. In addition, the Iranian government has repeatedly hung people accused of being homosexuals. The Iranian government recently hosted a Holocaust denial conference. It sponsors and controls Hezbollah, which started a war with Israel this summer and is about ready to start another civil war in Lebanon. It actively funds Shiite death squads in Iraq, helping to stoke tensions there. And all of the while, it is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and may spark a regional arms race in the process.

Recently, Iran's president has been coming under intense pressure, both at home and abroad. Iranians are tired of his extreme rhetoric. They are disgusted with his failed economic policies. They are angry that he keeps turning the international community against Iran and seems to be driving the country to war with the USA. The Iranian President is weak right now, which means it is an opportune time to strike a deal. And then John Kerry goes and completely undermines the USAs rhetorical case. The Iranian leaders already tell their people that the USA is evil. When John Kerry seconds this opinion, will they be more willing to negotiate and make peace? Or more resolved to stand and fight against the Great Satan?

Oh, and to hell with Jane Fonda. Socialist movie stars are the worst.

One last chance to avert WW3.

When I first heard rumors of what Bush was going to do, I was strongly opposed. Several weeks ago I wrote that it was time for the United States to withdraw to Kurdistan. This position change stemmed from the fact that the political process was not moving forward. Regardless of that the media claims, I define a civil war as what happens when political negotiations fail; it seemed that Iraq was at that point.

And it still may be. But now Bush had put forth a new strategy, that couples increased force for security with major political concessions by the Iraqi Shiite Prime Minister, Malaki. He is offering a massive olive branch to the Sunni Arabs (who comprise the bulk of the insurgency) by addressing four of their main complaints. These are:

1. A new plan to spread oil wealth equally among all Iraqis.
2. Revision to the constitution that would make the future amending process easier.
3. Easing and eliminating many of the de-Baathification policies to allow qualified Sunnis regain their jobs.
4. A promise to fight renegade forces of all sects, including Shia ones.

In addition, we have two other advantages with this changed strategy. The first is new leadership. Some time ago, a certain US military commander was in charge of Basra (a large Iraqi city) and brilliantly orchestrated a political deal with the locals that resulted in peace and security. Unfortunately, this commander's unit was relocated and replaced by a unit using traditional US military doctrine. The situation in Basra quickly deteriorated. This same commander, who was so successful in Basra, has recently been made the commander of all US forces in Iraq.

Our second new advantage comes from the north. The Kurds have a well trained military organization that has turned Kurdistan into an oasis of calm and prosperity in Iraq, known as the Pershmerga. The Kurds have promised to send some of these units to Baghdad, to help secure the capital. These forces will be seen as neutral intermediaries between the Sunni and Shia Arabs who are warring. And the Pershmerga have a knowledge of local language and custom that US troops could only dream of having.

These are real solutions to an enormous problem; a far cry from the inane propaganda that we normally hear from the Bush administration. Unfortunately, it is likely that we will fail. I still support this last effort, however, because the alternative is simply not acceptable. At best, the conflict would stay localized to Iraq and there would only be a bit of ethnic cleansing and genocide. At worst, the war would spread to the wider Middle East. There could be millions of casualties either way. And imagine what oil prices would do in the event of a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Kiss the world economy goodbye.

I will greatly regret the US casualties that we will face, but I feel that we owe it to Iraqis and Muslims in general to give it one last shot. And besides, Bush set an implicit timetable in his speech anyways. If there hasnt been serious political gains by November, we're gone.