Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Monday, October 22, 2007

Mid-East Omnibus, or I'm So Worried

In chronological order:

Story 1: Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte tried to spin al-Qaeda's resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a good thing.

NEGROPONTE: It’s getting better. It’s definitely getting better. And I’ve heard some people suggest, go so far as to suggest, that al-Qaeda is getting discouraged in Iraq and is thinking more of concentrating their efforts on Afghanistan and other areas.

ROSE: That good news or bad?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I think it’s at least good news that their wings have clipped somewhat in Iraq....

Negroponte’s assertions imply that al Qaeda is not being “crippled” in Iraq but is merely being displaced. Ironically, while the war in Iraq introduced al-Qaeda elements to Iraq, the war may now be directly increasing the threat that originated in Afghanistan.

Story 2: Speaking of Pakistan, the New York Times has a new article reviewing American policy toward the nation following the attempted assassination of Benazir Bhutto. It begins, "The scenes of carnage in Pakistan this week conjured what one senior administration official on Friday called 'the nightmare scenario' for President Bush’s last 15 months in office: Political meltdown in the one country where Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and nuclear weapons are all in play." The article criticizes Bush's attention-shift away from the region and his reliance on General Pervez Musharraf who has little political capital left to spend.

Story 3: This is an excellent article by Fareed Zakaria about Iran. Zakaria slams President Bush and pundits on the right who claim that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has his finger on the button" and "will trigger World War III." In all actuality, Iran is years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon, and most of the Middle East is aligned against Iran. Zakaria also criticizes those, like Rudy Guiliani, who compare Ahmadinejad with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Firstly, Ahmadinejad is largely a figurehead in Iran--the ayatollah wields most of the power--and Hitler, Stalin, and Mao "casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them....One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers." Zakaria ends with the little-known information that Iran was instrumental in forming our allegiance with the Northern Alliance in the war in Afghanistan and continued to offer cooperation with the U.S. even after being labeled as part of the Axis of Evil by President Bush.

    Saturday, October 20, 2007

    Declining Stature, or Failed State Department

    In a recent Swampland article, Joe Klein details how the United States is becoming increasingly ignored overseas:

    [1][T]he Iraqis [are] turning to China and Iran to construct electric power plants. This is particularly significant because America's inability to provide electricity in Iraq has been, for average Iraqis, the most infuriating daily evidence of our ineptitude...[2]Russian President Putin [is] offering a new alliance--and a new idea to resolve the nuclear situation--to the Iranians...[3]Turkey [is] empowering its army to move against the Kurdish guerrillas[.]

    One of the commenters adds:

    I recently heard Byron Wein speak. He contrasted a visit to China this year with a visit two or three years ago. On his previous visit, everyone he met wanted to talk about America; it was almost always the first topic of conversation. On his recent visit, America came up a bit, but less than Europe--despite the fact they were talking to an American. In his words, America has become "just another country". Americans still believe in American exceptionalism and in his judgement, Europeans and Asians did until recently, but that is rapidly fading.

    Wednesday, October 17, 2007

    Turkey Causes Trouble, or It's Hard Not to Put a Pun Here

    This from the Swampland blog over at Time.com:

    Over the summer, I took an informal poll of Iraq analysts at various US intelligence agencies about how and whether the Iraq war would spill over into neighboring countries....The near unanimous opinion was...that the border to watch was Turkey-Kurdistan. The mega-fear is that the Turks will move in to "protect" the local Turkmen population if the Kurds take over Kirkuk (and the adjacent oil fields). The more likely scenario was that the Turks would cross the border to take action against the PKK guerrillas, who have been causing real trouble in the Kurdish areas of Turkey for years. Now the Turkish parliament has approved cross-border military action against the PKK. I'm not sure that this is anything more than a warning flare--or an acknowledgement of the sort of raids that have already been taking place on both sides. But it's not very good....

    Add this to Turkey threatening to prevent the U.S. from shipping supplies to Iraq through Turkey (70% of all air cargo headed to Iraq goes through Turkey) if the House passes a resolution condemning the Ottoman Empire's WWI-era slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians as an act of genocide, and you can see how Turkey is ruffling a few feathers in the Mid-East. (I'm sorry, I had to.)

    Friday, October 5, 2007

    Another Case for Withdrawal

    In a recent Alternet article, Raed Jarrer & Joshua Holland argue that a U.S. withdrawal would be the best way to end al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq. Iraqis of all ethnic groups despise al-Qaeda, but tacitly support their attacks on coalition forces. Such support would collapse as soon as those forces withdraw. A majority of Iraqis also believe that withdrawal would lead to a more secure Iraq (as less foreign fighters would be drawn to Iraq by an American presence) and even less sectarian violence.

    If you need more proof than Iraqi consensus, note that the heavily touted progress in the al-Anbar province is really due to a drawdown of American troops.

    Wednesday, October 3, 2007

    Iran So Far Away

    A la Ahmadinejad at Columbia, Ferdowsi University (in Mashhad, Iran) has invited Bush to speak and answer questions. Bush has--you'll never guess--declined, claiming he'd only be willing to travel to a democratic Iran. Ironically, (in a sad sort of a way) the actions of Bush and his fellow conservatives have made a democratic Iran less possible:
    As The Washington Post reported in June of 2006, under pressure from a then-powerful reform movement, the Iranian government in 2003 sent a secret message seeking reconciliation with America. It proposed negotiations to stop monetary support for Hezbollah and Hamas, to provide assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan and to recognize Israel in exchange for a lifting of American sanctions and a guarantee not to try to overthrow the current government. America rejected the offer and increased its anti-Iran rhetoric, the Post reported. The next year, the reformists were defeated in Iranian elections, and they have been demoralized and relatively weak ever since.

    In other news, Australia has said that it would not follow the U.S. into a war with Iran. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has been a close ally of President Bush, and Australia currently has about 1,500 troops in Iraq.

    Monday, October 1, 2007

    Touche, or Tit for Tat

    Following the United States' decision to label Iran's armed forces, the Revolutionary Guards, as a terrorist organization, Iran's Parliament has voted to designate the U.S. military and CIA as terrorist organizations. The statement cited Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and the war in Iraq as examples.

    Wednesday, September 12, 2007

    Never forget.

    “Never forget.” That’s what the sign said by the flags memorializing the victims on the northern part of the Diag. That’s what the poster said depicting various “terrorist” acts leading up to 9/11. Challenging these words seems to be unpatriotic, but the phrase has always struck me as cliché, unnecessary, and offensive.

    Could anybody really forget what happened six years ago today, even if they really wanted? There are doubtlessly some for whom the attacks were especially traumatic—families of victims, rescue workers, businessmen who decided not to go to the office that day and will forever be haunted by “What if?”—who desperately want to forget, or at least not be continuously reminded of it.

    Perhaps I wouldn’t be as bothered by those who said, “Never forget,” if they merely meant “Let’s remember and honor those who died on 9/11 and unite as a country against our common enemy.” But the phrase is more often than not used by fear-mongers who seek to politicize the tragedy. Instead of the above, “Never forget” implies “Remember the terror you felt on that day, and trust us with your civil liberties, trust us to make the complex foreign-policy decisions that are beyond your understanding. If anyone challenges us, they are not true patriots. We can and will keep you safe like no one else can.”

    That may be an exaggeration, but take for example the poster that depicts the six “terrorist” acts. It shows three acts perpetrated by Al-Qaeda: the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off Yemen, and 9/11. The poster also shows an image from the 1979-80 Iranian Hostage Crisis and a group of Iraqis burning an American flag in 1998. The last is not even an act of terrorism, and surely I could be forgiven if I forget that five Iraqis burned a flag nine years ago. The effect of the poster is to conflate Persian with Arab and Sunni with Shiite, to portray America under attack from Muslims worldwide who would all gladly kill us if they had the chance.

    Whether the creator of the poster was deliberately racist or merely careless is debatable, but the fact remains that the poster is fear-inducing propaganda. This fear stifles dissent, discouraging debate and paralyzing the body politic of our nation. It is cruelly ironic that those who urge all never to forget have themselves forgotten that this is what the terrorists wanted in the first place.

    Saturday, August 25, 2007

    To err is human; to withdraw, divine.

    A new Think Progress article speculates that withdrawing from Iraq could actually be the best move for the nation's security:

    Much of the touted security gains have come in the Anbar province,...while troop numbers were being reduced in the region....

    Many Sunnis, for their part, are less inclined to see the soldiers as occupiers now that it is clear that American troop reductions are all but inevitable, and they are more concerned with strengthening their ability to fend off threats from Sunni jihadists and Shiite militias....

    Recognition that there is a far more effective alternative to U.S. military operations to reduce al Qaeda’s influence would be a major blow to George W. Bush’s argument against a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops, which has relied increasingly on the threat of an al Qaeda haven in Iraq.

    Read the whole article here.

    Thursday, August 16, 2007

    Intelligent Debate That Can Only Be Found on Fake News

    Jon Stewart is referring to this clip of an interview with Dick Cheney in 1994 following the first Persian Gulf War that recently appeared on YouTube:

    Thursday, July 5, 2007

    Iraq War Architects Rewarded for Their Blunders

    A new report from Think Progress examines where the architects of the war in Iraq are now. Some highlights:
    • Paul Wolfowitz who "said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was 'wildly off the mark'" was nominated by President Bush to head of the World Bank. Following a scandal, Wolfowitz resigned and is now a guest scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, "a right-wing think tank that 'has the President’s ear' on national security issues."
    • "As then-Deputy National Security Advisor, [Stephen] Hadley disregarded memos from the CIA and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet [advising] that references to Iraq’s pursuit of uranium be dropped from Bush’s speeches." Hadley became National Security Advisor following Condoleezza Rice's promotion to Secretary of State.
    • Richard Perle "suggested Iraq had a hand in 9-11" and, in a 1996 paper entitled "Clean Break," "argued for regime change in Iraq." The "Prince of Darkness" is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and is under investigation for war profiteering.

    Tuesday, July 3, 2007

    Editorial: On Terrorism

    The greatest issue that we, as Americans, face today is terrorism. No other problem is capable of creating the confusion, division, and tragedy that terrorism has already caused. Even worse, terrorism is likely to continue to be an issue many years into the future. However, the president’s present course of action is not the solution to the problem.

    The biggest mistake of both the Bush Administration and the war on terror was the invasion of Iraq. The evidence supporting Bush’s invasion turned out to be false and should have been recognized as unreliable. The claim that Iraq was developing nuclear technology was being refuted by the United Nations and Joseph Wilson. Wilson was sent by the White House to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was interested in purchasing yellowcake, a form of unrefined uranium, from the country. When he reported that the claim was false, a member of the Bush Administration committed a federal offense by leaking that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a spy working for the CIA. Much of the information came from Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile living in London who had an active interest in Hussein’s overthrow. Once Hussein was usurped, Chalabi could then take power, or be placed in power by the U.S., in Iraq.

    Because it was planned as well as it was investigated, the war is prolonging the problems it was intended to solve. Since the troops were lacking in both number and armor, they were completely unprepared for the sectarian violence that erupted in Iraq. The political vacuum allows terrorism to find a new home in Iraq. Thus, I am hesitant to withdraw troops before political stability is established. However, I am uncomfortable leaving over 150,000 American troops caught in the crossfire between Shi’a and Sunni without a clear strategy for ending the violence, something President Bush has not been able to provide in four years.

    The war in Iraq has also shifted attention away from catching Osama bin Laden who is still at large in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Taliban are even regaining power. Bush’s crusade does not create a terrorist haven in Iraq instead of Afghanistan; it creates a haven in Iraq in addition to one in Afghanistan.

    Furthermore, President Bush’s whole approach to the war on terror can best be described as Orwellian. His statement that “we are fighting terrorists over there [in Iraq] so we don’t have to fight them over here” parallels “War is Peace” more closely than any other sentence I have ever heard outside of 1984. Bush tells us that “Ignorance is Strength” everyday. That is why enemy combatants cannot be made aware of their accusations. That is why recipients of National Security Letters (NSLs) are given gag orders preventing them from disclosing to the public what the government has requested of them. That is why executive privilege is invoked whenever Congress or the public demands answers. If the terrorists knew what we knew, they could use that knowledge against us! Big Brother is trying to protect you! The worst part is the “Freedom is Slavery” parallel. For the Bush Administration, freedom from worry from terrorist threats entails slavery to constant monitoring of phone calls, mail, and e-mail.

    Democracy cannot be defended by suspending its core ideals. Freedoms of speech and of press; rights to privacy, a speedy trial, and trial by jury; protections from unreasonable search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment are all basic ideas of the Bill of Rights. The belief that suspending these freedoms is the only way to ensure that they will continue is ludicrous, especially when we have not even tried to fight terrorism while maintaining these freedoms.

    No, we must take the high road in the war on terror. Domestic surveillance and police operations should be carried out with no greater leeway than that before 9/11. A clearer strategy must be found in the war in Iraq and a military presence must be kept there until the country becomes politically stable. Osama bin Laden must be captured and should be given a fair trial.

    Two broader policies must be adopted to combat the larger problem of radical Islam. First, we should create a federally funded program to promote energy independence and renewable fuel. This will be our generation’s NASA, our generation’s Apollo Program. The president, like Kennedy with the moon landing in 1961, should declare the goal of being energy independent in ten years. In addition to the environmental benefits, money will stop being funneled through oil-producing Arab nations and into the hands of terrorist organizations.

    Furthermore, a new Marshall Plan is needed to invigorate the economy of the Middle East and North Africa. Many young men are drawn to terrorist organizations by promises of food, water, an education, and money to provide for their families after they die. Like the Marshall Plan, recipient nations should draft their own proposals for using U.S. money. Money should be given to any country who wishes to receive it; then, charges of imperialism will not hold. Furthermore, the people of nations who fail to ask for money or spend it wisely will seek change within their governments and pro-U.S. ones will take their place.

    This is the only way terrorism can be combated. Proclaiming that we are building democracy overseas while dismantling the one we have back home is dubiously hypocritical. If we avoid one thing, it should be moderate Muslims’ suspicions of U.S. actions.

    Sunday, July 1, 2007

    Operation Failing to Learn from Our Mistakes

    According to a recent article in the July 2, 2007, issue of Time magazine:

    Osama bin Laden has been urging Al-Qaeda followers to open up shop in Somalia for years, but there was always doubt about whether that call would resonate in a largely secular nation with a historic wariness of Arab interference. No longer. After January's attacks by Ethiopia--which were backed by U.S. air power and aimed to reduce the threat of terrorism--an increasingly international Islamist presence has flourished in the country, drawn by the chaos of postinvasion Somalia and the chance to strike back at the U.S. and its ally Ethiopia.

    Oops. The article continues, saying, "The parallels to Iraq...are plain."

    Read the whole (albeit painfully short) article here.