Sucks to be al-Maliki. And, why Iraq is completely unlike Vietnam.

I suppose simply being an Iraqi politician sucks, since no matter which side you're on there are at least a few million people that want you dead. But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has it bad even among this unfortunate bunch, because arguably his two most powerful supporters are demanding opposite things from him.

President Bush is planning on meeting with Maliki in four days. However, Muqtada al Sadr has just demanded that Maliki refuse to see Bush. Al Sadr commands one of the most powerful militias in Iraq, and his faction controls a huge number of Maliki's parliament seats. So if al-Maliki meets with Bush, al Sadr quits the government and the whole thing collapses. Alternatively, if al-Maliki refuses to meet with Bush, then US support will rightfully be removed and the government will collapse that way.

It seems to me that al Sadr is doing this intentionally. These actions will have no other effect than to bring down the current government. And ultimately that may not be a bad thing, as it clearly isn't working or even improving. We must not be quick to condemn al Sadr, though. His goals are a strong independent Iraq, free from Iranian domination, and he has in the past been willing to ally with Sunnis. He will be a natural ally in the future. Allow me to explain.

There are more battles going on in Iraq than just Sunnis vs Shiites. Within the Sunni community, the secular faction (former Baathists) are fighting the fundamentalists (Al Qaeda). In the Shiite community, al Sadr's group is fighting the Iranian backed Badr militia. These intra-sectarian battles aren't the major source of fighting at this time, but they would be as soon as US forces left the main part of the country.

With these differences in mind, the US should withdraw to Kurdistan and from there seek to accomplish four goals:

1. Negotiate a peace between the Kurds and Turkey, which would include getting the Kurds to reign in the PKK terrorist group that is acting in Turkey.

2. Supporting secular Sunnis against their fundamentalist enemies (Al Qaeda). This will be easy, since the secular Sunnis are already winning hands down from what I've been reading.

3. Be prepared to support al Sadr's nationalist Shiite movement against the Iranian-backed SCIRI and their Badr military wing. The Badr might accurately be thought of as an Iraqi version of Hezbollah.

4. Negotiate an alliance between these three national Iraqi groups (the Kurds, secular Sunnis, and nationalist Shiites). This would involve resolving points of dispute, such as the current Sunni-Kurd battle over Kirkuk. With some real diplomacy, I think these differences could be hashed out. And with American military power preventing a complete takeover by one side, I think it might even be possible to entice these sides to come to agree on a democratic government.

Regardless of what people are saying, Iraq is not Vietnam. In Vietnam, we were fighting a single powerful, well organized, and well funded adversary - the communists. When we withdrew from Vietnam, the communists immediately took over. But in Iraq, we aren't fighting one faction. We're fighting many factions that are roughly equally matched. We won the conventional battle of Iraq, but now we see that doesn't mean we won the war. Now some people are saying just because we're losing the battle to stabilize Iraq and establish an independent democratic government, we've lost that war.

They're wrong. America hasn't won, but neither has anyone else. This thing is far from over.

Putin murders former spy?

Here is the end of a letter written by the spy after he was poisoned:

"But as I lie here I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death. I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like. I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.

"You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.

"You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value.

"You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women.

"You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people."

I really thought Russia had moved on from this kind of thing. Clearly, not. The Economist had an article on Russia about a month ago; here are the last two paragraphs:

Russia's huge size and troubled history make any comparisons risky. Yet some see historical parallels in present trends. Yegor Gaidar, a former prime minister, draws an analogy with inter-war Germany, which like post-Soviet Russia experienced economic chaos, then a period of stabilisation in which post-imperial nostalgia took hold. Vladimir Ryzhkov, one of the few remaining independent parliamentarians, worries that Mr Putin seems to be switching from an imperial idea of Russia towards one more resembling a “Reich”.

History also offers a term to describe the direction in which Russia sometimes seems to be heading: a word that captures the paranoia and self-confidence, lawlessness and authoritarianism, populism and intolerance, and economic and political nationalism that now characterise Mr Putin's administration. It is an over-used word, and a controversial one, especially in Russia. It is not there yet, but Russia sometimes seems to be heading towards fascism.

Hey, assholes:

Your leaders tried to exterminate several racial groups, and started the most destructive war in human history. Our leaders were in charge of a handful of soldiers who made jailed insurgents form naked human pyramids, not unlike pledges in a particularly nasty fraternity.

That means just because we got to try and convict your leaders, you dont necessarily get to do the same to ours.

I don't like Rumsfeld. In fact, there isn't another politician that I dislike more. We should investigate his staggering level of incompetence, and he should be held accountable for his authorizations of torture or any other wrongdoings.

However, I'd prefer it if interpreting American laws was left to American judges, thank you very much. Here in the USA, we are perfectly capable of monitoring and punishing leaders who overstep their bounds. And unlike the Germans, we always have been.

***Update***

Darfur is getting worse. It would be nice if Germans spent their time going after real war criminals (hint: they are hiding in Khartoum) instead of making political points. It isn't America's job to police the entire world, and we're busy right now. It makes me angry to see the Europeans doing absolutely nothing to solve the problems that they created.

Dey tuke ur johb!

While there is some debate, the evidence strongly suggests that economic liberalization and the removal of barriers to free trade is beneficial in the long term. However, the adjustment process and short-term damage of free trade is far more visible. Seeing jobs sent overseas is painful to watch, but ultimately it is for the better.

The debate typically stops there, however. The rallying cry is to always protect American workers. I think we might do well to remember two other benefits in particular:

1. Sending jobs overseas provides a source of income for the world's poorest people. Is their life less important because they are not American?

2. Fewer barriers to trade means more trade. And nothing stops conflict and war like economic ties. The more we trade with Africa and the Middle East, the more our interests become their interests.

A final quote from Winston Churchill:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

I always get my way.

In the last few weeks, the world has been very kind to me. Almost every single important issue up for decision has gone my way. I'm getting spoiled!

-The efforts of Hugo Chavez to secure a UN Security Council seat for Venezuela have failed miserably. We haven't heard from him since.

-Kim Jong Il has agreed to restart negotiations on its nuclear program. I'm optimistic about the final result.

-The Democrats took both the House and Senate. Not that I'm thrilled about Democratic leadership; its just that I'm resigned into accepting that all of our leaders are worthless at this point. The best we can hope for is a divided government.

-Joe Lieberman won back his seat from Ned Lamont. Screw you, left wing activists. With the balance of power in the Senate so close, Lieberman is stronger than ever. That is a good thing, because he is a moderate with a proven record of bipartisanship.

-Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging. Putting someone to death in Iraq doesn't take as long as it does in the USA. Saddam will be dead in a matter of months.

-A right wing evangelical nutjob (Haggard) was humiliated and exposed for being the hypocritical and deceitful fraud that he is. What a scumbag.

-Don Rumsfeld lost his job. FINALLY.

-And, the most recent news, John Bolton is going to lose is job as Ambassador to the UN! That couldn't have happened soon enough...

I should go play the lottery.

What we missed during the election.

I had written a post a while back about nuclear proliferation. It can be found here (it is the second half of that post). In that post, I go into great detail as to why we should be particularly concerned with the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons, and why that reality would greatly increase the risk of nuclear war.

Here are some particularly relevant excerpts from that post:

"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."

This same phenomenon explains why Pakistan rushed to develop nukes, once the Indians had acquired theirs. How does this apply to Iran? Another excerpt:

"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 the news. According to the UK Times, six Arab states have declared that they intend to pursue nuclear technology. These nations include Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Let me repeat that. Six Arab Muslim states are going to pursue nuclear technology.

Of course, these six nations officially say they just want nuclear technology to generate electricity. Thats a laugh. Saudi Arabia has a population of 25 million people, and is sitting on enough oil to power the world for about 80 years. They must be dying for more energy. I'm sure some people still believe Iran doesn't want nukes, either.

I hope our new Democrat-led Congress has noticed this. This is what our government needs to address, right now. Nevermind global warming. Nevermind AIDs, birdflu, or terrorism. This is, hands down, the most serious challenge to world prosperity, possibly ever. We must stop Iran from developing their nuclear program; only then could the other nations be convinced to abandon their nuclear ambitions.

There could be, in a matter of decades, 8 countries in the Middle East with nuclear weapons. Six Arab nations, Iran, and Israel. That wouldn't make nuclear war likely. It would make it a virtual certainty.

Making excuses.

We are not losing Iraq because "Arabs are incapable of democracy". That is a racist and empirically untrue excuse. Besides, there is nothing that Arabs have done that Europeans haven't done worse. Ethnic violence? Civil war? Religious extremism? Genocide? Please. Iraqis are amateurs compared to the Europeans. Now the Europeans have taken a break for what, one generation in two millenia? And suddenly they are the pinnacle of human existence?

Moderating and democratizing the Middle East is going to take less time than the Cold War. That is my prediction; one that I unfortunately dont have time to explain right now. Just figured I'd say something optimistic for once.

Human shields.

This is the chosen tactic of Hezbollah and Hamas. It is disgusting, pathetic, and cowardly. Those things aside, the use of this tactic confirms a suspicion that I've had for some time now. These militants clearly hate Israel more than they love their own people. Perhaps this is something that we should always keep in the back of our mind when the complexities of the Middle East puzzle us in the future.

Its time.

The United States isn't going to stop the violence in Iraq, but that was never really a debate. The hope was that eventually the Iraqi government would be strong enough to take control of the country. It is clear now that the Iraqi government isn't going to be able to control Iraq in the far distant future, if ever. It is more fractured by the day, and its constituents are at each other's throats. There is even Shia-Shia infighting, with Al Sadr's militia fighting the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade (who have infested the police force).

What now? A complete withdrawal is a bad idea, because it is almost sure to drag Iraq's neighbors into a regional conflict (ie, quite literally WW3). Partition is a bad idea, because huge areas of the country are mixed in population; ethnic cleansing would certainly follow. The best idea is to withdraw to friendly Kurdistan, and let the Sunni and Shia Arabs fight it out. It would be important for us to negotiate a peace between the Kurds and the Turks. Further, our presence in the north would prevent Iraq's neighbors from getting involved. Finally, even though we won't physically be occupying Baghdad and other places, we'll still have an enormous amount of diplomatic leverage. We can use that power to try to negotiate a peace between the warring Arab factions.

It is mind boggling, the sheer stupidity of this entire adventure. Why the Bush administration found that a secular Arab dictator who was at odds with both Al Qaeda and Iran was an enemy worth removing is beyond me. In four years, Rumsfeld has failed to make any progress in Iraq, yet Bush still thinks he is doing a good job. We should drop them both in the middle of Baghdad, and be on our way.

But I might settle for impeachment.

Venezuela will not give up!

I dont consider myself to be a spiteful person. But I wanted sooo badly to see two people in particular fail at their endeavors. One of my wishes has been granted. When voting at the UN was in deadlock only a short while ago, Hugo Chavez had this to say:

"Venezuela doesn't give up. I say it here to the whole world, Venezuela will continue waging this battle."

And as of today, here is a BBC headline:

"Venezuela and Guatemala have withdrawn their rival bids for a UN Security Council seat from Latin America, diplomats have said."

Eat it, Chavez.

For the record.

I am a moderate libertarian, according to the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

Ouch.

Not that I particularly enjoy linking Michelle Malkin, but this is really nasty.

In short: the NY Times revealed a secret program that monitored bank transactions to track terrorists. The program was not being abused, nor was it illegal. The editor admits this much. Now, the program is no longer useful for monitoring terrorists...since they know about it.

I'm all about whistleblowers when the government is breaking the law. I dont want to see our civil liberties removed in the name of finding terrorists. I don't want to hear about secret prisons, or having people thrown in jail indefinitely. I don't want our government to officially sanction torture and throw out the Geneva Conventions.

But there a line that distinguishes between noble and courageous journalism, and politically-motivated pestering. At some point, no matter whether you support Bush or hate him, Americans need to recognize that we are fighting some sort of a war here. It was bullshit that the NY Times was so eager to throw something anti-Bush out there that they recklessly exposed this secret. I mean, Bush messes up enough as it is; its not like there is a shortage of things to call him out on. So why go with something that was clearly borderline at the time, and in retrospect was outright wrong?

It was partisanship that drove someone in the Bush administation to oust Valerie Plame as a spy, which weakened America's intelligence gathering capabilities. It was also partisanship that motivated the NY Times to jump the gun in this instance. It seems that political victory is most important to some...perhaps for many. Whether we actually stop the extremists must be of lesser importance.

Iran threatens Europe.

The Iranian President has been out of the news lately, no doubt judging the international response to North Korea's nuclear test. Marking 'Jerusalem Day', which is apparently some sort of 'Death to America and Israel' type celebration, he had some words for Europeans:

"It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals (Israelis). This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow. The Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

Evidently Americans, being so far away, are no longer a target of Iranian fury. Thats nice to know. Ahmadinejad reiterated previous positions that Israel has no right to exist, and that its Jewish inhabitants should go back to the countries from whence they came. I'm sure that would go over well.

Sarcasm aside, his words are obviously designed to widen the trans-Atlantic rift. A united West is something that has proven resilient to the threats and actions of such men throughout the course of history. Free and democratic societies, when they band together against authoritarian and genocidal regimes, have proven to be an unstoppable force. It isn't surprising at all that the Mullahs would try to divide the West with such language.

The unsettling thing is that as I sit here, there is a debate in my mind as to whether or not such threats might work against the Europeans.

Time for talks.

Negotiations failed once in Munich many years ago. That does not mean negotiating with an authoritarian regime is forever destined to be a horrible mistake. The time is right to negotiate. Why? Because we are in a position of great strength, and NK is in a position of great weakness. We can get the best deal if we negotiate now.

Yes, Kim Jong Il is on the defensive now. He sees the world allying against him, and his rhetoric is becoming more heated, and more desperate. I mean, the guy is talking about going to war with the United States. That indicates one of two things. Either he is insane, which I dont believe he is. Or he realizes that he is in a position of great weakness right now, and he is trying to appear strong. I'm quite sure that he has read his Sun Tzu. Given that even China and Russia are lining up against him, I'd say it is very likely that Kim is quite nervous right now, and if he hasn't already, he will soon realize he's made a big mistake.

And that is our great opportunity. Someone that is on the defensive simply will not come out and ask for reconciliation. They would fear making obvious the true weakness of their position. However, someone on the defensive will eagerly take an outstretched hand. We need to offer Kim an honorable out from this crisis. We need to give him a way to stand down without looking weak. We should negotiate, because we're in about as strong of a position now as we ever will be - the entire world behind us. We have all the cards. We should play them.

And if Kim slaps our hand away, or if he does turn out to be insane, and picks a fight with the United States, what have we lost? Only the moral low ground.

This is our ambassador to the UN?

"We interpret it very simply. They popped off, we stood up, and they backed down." - John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations.

His words were in response to recent diplomatic activity by Sudan. The original position held by the Sudanese was that the pledging of troops by UN member states for a Darfur mission would be considered a hostile act (a "prelude to invasion"). Sudan then apparently reversed its position. Link here.

I've always despised this guy. Maybe its because he looks like a moron with his massive moustache. Honestly though, he couldn't have been less eloquent. No wonder world opinion has turned so strongly against us. Our diplomats are loud-mouthed uneducated assholes. We couldn't find someone else to better represent the US in the most important world body?

Equally disturbing is that the UN is still paralyzed, too intimidated to act against genocide. That is a tragedy. Perhaps it is a good thing that someone finally spoke with strong words towards the Sudanese government? No, its not. Unfortunately, the US isn't in a position to resolve that conflict unilaterally. We're already busy occupying one oil-rich Arab nation. If anything is going to happen in Sudan, its going to be through the UN. And so it doesn't help matters to be so abrasive, as Bolton did.

If however we weren't in Iraq, I'd be all about the quick and violent destruction of that genocidal regime in Khartoum. Never again.

The appropriate time for fighting words

is not now.

Fighting words should be reserved for those rarest of situations, when we are about ready to strike with military force. For such a situation to materialize, two conditions both have been met. The first condition is that the crisis is so grave that an armed response is absolutely necessary. The second is that we are capable of dealing with the full repercussions of our attack and are prepared to follow it out to an appropriate conclusion.

In other words, a nation must never attack unless it has no other option, and a nation must never attack if it doesn't know it can win the ensuing conflict - and pyrrhic victories are not satisfactory conclusions.

"North Korea must choose either to have a future or to have nuclear weapons "but it cannot have them both", top US negotiator Christopher Hill said." (BBC)

I'm really not thrilled that North Korea is going to test a nuke. But it doesn't make any sense to speak in threatening language. Consider the two possible scenarios:

1) The US is prepared to launch a military strike, and this is our warning.
This is stupid. We're going to go and attack a nuclear armed nation? Smart. And then what, when the North Koreans retaliate (hopefully in a conventional way)? Escalate the war? Invade? Nuke? Get out of here, these are all shitty options. America should not be responsible for starting a war.

2) The US is not going to launch a military strike, but is rattling its sabers.
Then why the fighting words? Hey, I don't know if anyone noticed, but Kim is one of those leaders that doesn't seem to care about the welfare of his people. He isn't going to back down to US military threats. So making such threats only makes negotiation with him (which is hard enough) even more difficult.

Everyone needs to relax. At the end of the day, we all knew North Korea had nukes. And North Korea is still more rational / deterrable / negotiable than the Iranians are. If North Korea tests its nukes, all its going to do is strengthen our diplomatic position and weaken NK's. If we attack them, the opposite is true. Let Kim test his nuke, and then watch the world stand with America in its strategy of containment, isolation, and sanctions. Eventually NK will crumble. Its a proven strategy. Look at the Soviet Union - did we ever attack them?

And, god forbid, if North Korea ever uses its weapons...nobody can say we didn't try. We can unleash everything we have and ensure the complete destruction of the North Korean government, and we'll have the moral high ground and the backing of the world in doing so.

Another catastrophic failure.

North Korea has announced that it will conduct its first nuclear test, although it has not specified when it will take place. Of course, this is a major setback and serious diplomatic efforts should be made to prevent this test. North Korea's acquisition of nuclear arms is another product of Bush's horrid foreign policy strategies.

We need a diplomatic president in office at a time like this, not a sniveling coward that masquerades as a tough guy.

Historical details of the North Korean diplomatic situation can be found here. A must read.

gogo Independents

Senator Lieberman explains why independents are the fastest growing category of voters.

His multi-millionaire challenger, Ned Lamont, is an opportunist; nothing more. A Lieberman victory is going to be a strong statement against petty partisan stunts.

Trent Lott:

"It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," he said. "Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."
-Link

I wouldn't consider those to be stupid questions if they were asked by my 11 year old sister, to be fair. Is this US Senator really so clueless about world history that he would ask why people kill in the name of religion? Why is he in office?

Here was the first part of that same press release:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.

"No, none of that," Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. "You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part."

Maybe we wouldn't be losing Iraq if our leadership did obsess over it? Isn't that their fucking job? He went on to assert that real people in the real world didn't care about Iraq. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. We will be greeted as liberators. There is no insurgency. The insurgency is in its last throes. And now, the result in Iraq doesn't matter. Just the latest in a depressing series of profound miscalculations.

Terrorism:

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Our government is about to pass a law that will suspend Habeas Corpus. It also has an illegal wiretapping program, and officially tortures captured enemy fighters.

Oh, we citizens should not be surprised. It was fear that led us to support a bogus war against a false threat. We showed how scared we were last fall, we didn't stand up for our freedom of speech when it was being challenged by threats of violence. And even now, we pre-censor artistic expression because of threats that have yet to even materialize!

So why shouldn't the government suspend Habeas Corpus? The citizens of this country have shown that they don't care about their rights anyways. The government might as well get rid of them and make the job of fighting terrorists a little bit easier. Screw the moral high ground.

We are a bunch of scared, intimidated sheep. Embarrassing.