2004-05-09
America the Model
As I’ve stated in various points around the blogosphere, the most important thing for America to do in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is to practice “leadership by example” and make an example of those who were involved in the abuse. We must at all times bear in mind that not only will the world judge us by our handling of this matter, but – perhaps even more importantly – the new Iraqi nation will look to us for real-life instruction in how a free and democratic society purges itself of fascist tendencies. It is safe to say that the “six morons” of Abu Ghraib are the most hated people in America today. We must demonstrate that the due process of law and a fair, impartial trial are what is needed to bring them to justice. We must also learn hard lessons about the horrific conditions in our own prison system – and make changes fast.
2004-05-07
Two Views of Abu Ghraib
TWO VIEWS OF ABU GHRAIB. (Head Heeb, Belmont Club) Noting that “it is in the nature of counterinsurgencies” to blur the line between enemy and civilians, the Head Heeb asserts that “We need to leave [Iraq] while we still have a choice.” (I have taken some slight exception to this conclusion – see Comments.) The Belmont Club draws a different lesson: Wretchard explains that conflicts unresolved – that is, wars unwon – soon degenerate into endless cycles of mindless bloodshed. Wretchard’s analysis reminds us that the dehumanizing effects of war are by no means limited to counterinsurgencies, but are part of conventional warfare as well – which is exactly why wars, including this one, must be ended quickly and decisively.
CLARIFICATION:
For my part, I think we are all agreed on the need to turn control of Iraq over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. For a better understanding of Jonathan's position, I'll let the HH tell it in his own words:
What productive purpose is our continued presence in Iraq serving? Getting rid of Saddam - that job's done. Eliminating WMDs - well, no. Fighting terrorism - sure, but at this point the terrorism is mostly local and occupation-inspired rather than the sort of global terror we should really be fighting. Preventing anarchy - maybe, but at this point it seems more like we're preventing natural political evolution. Increasing American political leverage - we're doing quite the opposite of that at this point. Cleaning up the mess - a noble cause, certainly, but our best efforts seem only to make the mess worse.
If we keep winning all the battles but the situation keeps getting worse, then I think our presence might fairly be described as counterproductive.
CLARIFICATION:
For my part, I think we are all agreed on the need to turn control of Iraq over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. For a better understanding of Jonathan's position, I'll let the HH tell it in his own words:
What productive purpose is our continued presence in Iraq serving? Getting rid of Saddam - that job's done. Eliminating WMDs - well, no. Fighting terrorism - sure, but at this point the terrorism is mostly local and occupation-inspired rather than the sort of global terror we should really be fighting. Preventing anarchy - maybe, but at this point it seems more like we're preventing natural political evolution. Increasing American political leverage - we're doing quite the opposite of that at this point. Cleaning up the mess - a noble cause, certainly, but our best efforts seem only to make the mess worse.
If we keep winning all the battles but the situation keeps getting worse, then I think our presence might fairly be described as counterproductive.
Morning Report: May 7, 2004
Morning Report will be on liberty Saturday, May 8, for Shabbat. Returning to duty on Sunday, May 9.
· Mashahr clashes. (SMCCDI/Daneshjoo) Daneshjoo reports clashes in Mahshahr, Iran, after regime security forces attacked demonstrators protesting the planned Kosaran Dam.
· Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal. (Head Heeb) Jonathan announces that Ariel Sharon has assured European leaders he will go forward with the Gaza disengagement plan, without modifying its main points.
· Omar considers a career move. (Iraq the Model, The Mesopotamian) And he shares Arab reaction to Abu Ghraib. Alaa weighs in as well.
· Mashahr clashes. (SMCCDI/Daneshjoo) Daneshjoo reports clashes in Mahshahr, Iran, after regime security forces attacked demonstrators protesting the planned Kosaran Dam.
· Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal. (Head Heeb) Jonathan announces that Ariel Sharon has assured European leaders he will go forward with the Gaza disengagement plan, without modifying its main points.
· Omar considers a career move. (Iraq the Model, The Mesopotamian) And he shares Arab reaction to Abu Ghraib. Alaa weighs in as well.
2004-05-06
State vs. Defense - and the Chalabi Charge
When you first read the article linked at my post “Chalabi Aiding Iranian Mullahs?”, didn’t you think it was just a tiny bit curious that “intelligence agencies” (meaning the CIA) were suddenly concerned about about those Iranian insurgents in Iraq? Especially when the Agency has never said peep about them? I know, it sounded odd to me too. But, according to the Newsweek piece, “the State Department and the CIA are using the intelligence about his Iran ties to persuade the president to cut him loose once and for all” [my emphasis – aa]. While “Chalabi still has loyal defenders among some neoconservatives in the Pentagon,” according to the article. (Those pesky neoconservatives! That damn Pentagon!)
In an April 30 article, Barbara Lerner addresses criticisms of what has been termed “Rumsfeld’s occupation” of Iraq. “First,” she says, “it’s not Rumsfeld’s occupation; it’s Colin Powell’s and George Tenet’s.” And second, that’s the problem. And one more thing: now there’s talk of handing Iraq over to the United Nations and Lakhdar Brahimi.
There are two factions at work in Washington: one, led by the White House and the Defense Department, and the other, led by the CIA and the State Department. According to Lerner, “Rumsfeld’s plan was to equip – and then transport to Iraq – some 10,000 Shia and Sunni freedom fighters led by Shia exile leader Ahmed Chalabi” to join Kurdish freedom fighters led by Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani. General Garner would have then handed power over to these three, and six others, in “a matter of weeks – not months or years” thus greatly enhancing the legitimacy of the new Iraqi government.
But State and the CIA had other ideas. Garner was replaced with State man Paul Bremer. The Iraqi exile force was slashed to a few hundred, while Rumsfeld’s trio was inflated to a total of 25, with the result that “Bremer’s face [was] the only one most Iraqis saw.”
In Bemer’s GC, many Iraqis “saw a foreign occupation occupation of potentially endless length” led by untrustworthy Americans, while Syria and Iran set about trying to carve up the newly liberated Iraq.
Now check out David Frum’s new piece (May 6). Money quote: “Those inside the government pushing the line that Mr. Chalabi has divulged secrets to the Iranians come from the same bureaucracies, the State Department and CIA, that have also advocated for the inclusion of Iraqi parties with more open links to Tehran in the Iraqi Governing Council, such as the Dawa Party.” Attention, Department of Pots and Kettles.
And speaking of Foggy Bottom and Tehran, read this from Frum’s May 5 post:
“And those intrepid foes of Iranian imperialism at the State Department? What have they done? In March 2004, Colin Powell agreed with the European allies to drop US demands for Security Council action against Iran. US policy is now one of “engagement” with Iran – even as Iran hosts al Qaeda on its territory and supports terrorism inside Iraq.” For Frum’s devastating analysis, read the whole post at the link.
But I digress. Back to the original question: Is the Iraq occupation Powell’s or Rumsfeld’s? With the horrifying revelations that have come to light since Barbara Lerner’s article was published, Rumsfeld’s reputation is now badly tarnished. But in any event, Lerner is adamant that the occupation must not be Brahimi’s. “The UN as a whole is bad; Lakhdar Brahimi is worse,” she writes. “Men like Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani have nothing but contempt for Mr. Brahimi, the UN, and the Old Europe.” These are the ones we must support – regardless of where Rumsfeld’s career may take him.
In an April 30 article, Barbara Lerner addresses criticisms of what has been termed “Rumsfeld’s occupation” of Iraq. “First,” she says, “it’s not Rumsfeld’s occupation; it’s Colin Powell’s and George Tenet’s.” And second, that’s the problem. And one more thing: now there’s talk of handing Iraq over to the United Nations and Lakhdar Brahimi.
There are two factions at work in Washington: one, led by the White House and the Defense Department, and the other, led by the CIA and the State Department. According to Lerner, “Rumsfeld’s plan was to equip – and then transport to Iraq – some 10,000 Shia and Sunni freedom fighters led by Shia exile leader Ahmed Chalabi” to join Kurdish freedom fighters led by Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani. General Garner would have then handed power over to these three, and six others, in “a matter of weeks – not months or years” thus greatly enhancing the legitimacy of the new Iraqi government.
But State and the CIA had other ideas. Garner was replaced with State man Paul Bremer. The Iraqi exile force was slashed to a few hundred, while Rumsfeld’s trio was inflated to a total of 25, with the result that “Bremer’s face [was] the only one most Iraqis saw.”
In Bemer’s GC, many Iraqis “saw a foreign occupation occupation of potentially endless length” led by untrustworthy Americans, while Syria and Iran set about trying to carve up the newly liberated Iraq.
Now check out David Frum’s new piece (May 6). Money quote: “Those inside the government pushing the line that Mr. Chalabi has divulged secrets to the Iranians come from the same bureaucracies, the State Department and CIA, that have also advocated for the inclusion of Iraqi parties with more open links to Tehran in the Iraqi Governing Council, such as the Dawa Party.” Attention, Department of Pots and Kettles.
And speaking of Foggy Bottom and Tehran, read this from Frum’s May 5 post:
“And those intrepid foes of Iranian imperialism at the State Department? What have they done? In March 2004, Colin Powell agreed with the European allies to drop US demands for Security Council action against Iran. US policy is now one of “engagement” with Iran – even as Iran hosts al Qaeda on its territory and supports terrorism inside Iraq.” For Frum’s devastating analysis, read the whole post at the link.
But I digress. Back to the original question: Is the Iraq occupation Powell’s or Rumsfeld’s? With the horrifying revelations that have come to light since Barbara Lerner’s article was published, Rumsfeld’s reputation is now badly tarnished. But in any event, Lerner is adamant that the occupation must not be Brahimi’s. “The UN as a whole is bad; Lakhdar Brahimi is worse,” she writes. “Men like Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani have nothing but contempt for Mr. Brahimi, the UN, and the Old Europe.” These are the ones we must support – regardless of where Rumsfeld’s career may take him.
Morning Report: May 6, 2004
· Sudan on UN Human Rights Commission. (Free Arab Forum) With splendid understatement, Jonathan notes that “It is very interesting to find Sudan on the UN Human Rights Commission.” The regime that actively participates in rape, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against indigenous Africans has been elected to a three-year tem on that august organization.
· Sharon weighs his options. (Safire) William Safire, channeling Ariel Sharon, foresees the Israeli Prime Minister pursuing a “modified disengagement plan”. By re-negotiating the disengagement plan with his cabinet and taking it to the Knesset later, proceeding “more slowly than [Sharon] had hoped”, Arik can allow his opponents to save face and avoid the stigma of acting unilaterally. Safire expresses his hope that Sharon will indeed choose this course.
· Sharon and the messy divorce. (Clifford D. May) Also on the subject of the Gaza disengagement plan, Cliff May argues that Arafat and other Arab leaders oppose the plan because “it would mean that after all these years, terrorism has failed – and they have failed as well.” The aging Sharon is growing impatient and understands that he must seek “not peace but only security”. This is not “rewarding terrorism”, May maintains, but defeating it.
· Sharon weighs his options. (Safire) William Safire, channeling Ariel Sharon, foresees the Israeli Prime Minister pursuing a “modified disengagement plan”. By re-negotiating the disengagement plan with his cabinet and taking it to the Knesset later, proceeding “more slowly than [Sharon] had hoped”, Arik can allow his opponents to save face and avoid the stigma of acting unilaterally. Safire expresses his hope that Sharon will indeed choose this course.
· Sharon and the messy divorce. (Clifford D. May) Also on the subject of the Gaza disengagement plan, Cliff May argues that Arafat and other Arab leaders oppose the plan because “it would mean that after all these years, terrorism has failed – and they have failed as well.” The aging Sharon is growing impatient and understands that he must seek “not peace but only security”. This is not “rewarding terrorism”, May maintains, but defeating it.
2004-05-05
British Influence in Iran
This article details the history of the UK connection with the mullahs' regime in Tehran. Please take a few moments to look it over. I'll be posting excerpts soon, and we'll talk about what it means.
And don't forget to visit the Free Iran board - click the link on my sidebar.
UPDATE:
Sorry, had the wrong link before. This one should get you there.
And don't forget to visit the Free Iran board - click the link on my sidebar.
UPDATE:
Sorry, had the wrong link before. This one should get you there.
Best of Blogdad: Iraqis Address the Peace Movement (Part 1)
The worldwide antiwar demonstrations in 2003 attracted a lot of publicity. And the peace activists had quite a lot to say to the rest of us.
Some of the Iraqis they claimed to be defending had a few things to say to them, too, although it is not certain how closely the activists were listening.
The title of Mohammed’s November 17 post, addressed to the peace movement, gets right to the point:
******
YOU OWE US AN APOLOGY
I don’t know really know why Saddam’s regime lasted for over three decades, but I am sure as an Iraqi who survived that period that there’re no legal or moral justifications for it to remain. I was counting days and hours waiting to see an end to that regime, just like all those who suffered the cruelty of that brutal regime. It’s been really a disgrace chasing the world ,the world of the 21st. century, reminding it how incapable it was to aid the oppressed and to sue those who dispised all the values of humanity.
Through out these decades I lost trust in the world governments and international committees. Terms like (human rights, democracy and liberty..etc.)became hallow and meaningless and those who keep repeating these words are liars..liars..liars. I hated the U.N and the security council and Russia and France and Germany and the arab nations and the islamic conference.
I’ve hated George Gallawy and all those marched in the millionic demonstrations against the war .It is I who was oppressed and I don’t want any one to talk on behalf of me, I, who was eager to see rockets falling on Saddam’s nest to set me free, and it is I who desired to die gentlemen, because it’s more merciful than humiliation as it puts an end to my suffer, while humiliation lives with me reminding me every moment that I couldn’t defend myself against those who ill-treated me. [emphasis mine - aa]
******
Take a moment to read this over and think about it. Then read the whole post at the link. And visit the current post by Omar, Mohammed, and Ali Fadhil on their blog “Iraq the Model” – use the link on my sidebar.
Stay tuned for more.
Some of the Iraqis they claimed to be defending had a few things to say to them, too, although it is not certain how closely the activists were listening.
The title of Mohammed’s November 17 post, addressed to the peace movement, gets right to the point:
******
YOU OWE US AN APOLOGY
I don’t know really know why Saddam’s regime lasted for over three decades, but I am sure as an Iraqi who survived that period that there’re no legal or moral justifications for it to remain. I was counting days and hours waiting to see an end to that regime, just like all those who suffered the cruelty of that brutal regime. It’s been really a disgrace chasing the world ,the world of the 21st. century, reminding it how incapable it was to aid the oppressed and to sue those who dispised all the values of humanity.
Through out these decades I lost trust in the world governments and international committees. Terms like (human rights, democracy and liberty..etc.)became hallow and meaningless and those who keep repeating these words are liars..liars..liars. I hated the U.N and the security council and Russia and France and Germany and the arab nations and the islamic conference.
I’ve hated George Gallawy and all those marched in the millionic demonstrations against the war .It is I who was oppressed and I don’t want any one to talk on behalf of me, I, who was eager to see rockets falling on Saddam’s nest to set me free, and it is I who desired to die gentlemen, because it’s more merciful than humiliation as it puts an end to my suffer, while humiliation lives with me reminding me every moment that I couldn’t defend myself against those who ill-treated me. [emphasis mine - aa]
******
Take a moment to read this over and think about it. Then read the whole post at the link. And visit the current post by Omar, Mohammed, and Ali Fadhil on their blog “Iraq the Model” – use the link on my sidebar.
Stay tuned for more.
"Marg ba Amerika" ... not!
For those of you who haven't gotten the word yet, the Iranian people don't hate Americans. Forget that stuff about the Great Satan. Read Nicholas Kristof's column in the New York Times. Then check out the discussions on the Free Iran message board - use the link on my sidebar.
More on the Six Morons
from Stephen at Politburo. Read the assembled comments from various sources. Don't miss the link to Zeyad's blog "Healing Iraq".
I think it's premature to say they've "lost the war" for us. It's simply that they have reminded us of what it is, exactly, that we are fighting; and that "the enemy" exists among our own ranks as well. By "the enemy" I don't simply mean these so-called "soldiers" themselves, but rather the principle of evil represented by their behavior.
But we can win. We have stopped torture at Abu Ghraib before, and we can stop it again - this time for good.
CLARIFICATION:
The Commisar notes that the phrase "six morons who lost the war" is attributed to a Pentagon source and is to be taken as hyperbole.
The part about "losing the war", that is; "morons" is a charitable understatement.
I think it's premature to say they've "lost the war" for us. It's simply that they have reminded us of what it is, exactly, that we are fighting; and that "the enemy" exists among our own ranks as well. By "the enemy" I don't simply mean these so-called "soldiers" themselves, but rather the principle of evil represented by their behavior.
But we can win. We have stopped torture at Abu Ghraib before, and we can stop it again - this time for good.
CLARIFICATION:
The Commisar notes that the phrase "six morons who lost the war" is attributed to a Pentagon source and is to be taken as hyperbole.
The part about "losing the war", that is; "morons" is a charitable understatement.
Feyrouz
has a post asking “What if the Iraqis liberated themselves?” (Hint: Saddam would probably not be chatting with Red Cross representatives about the fine points of the Genevea Convention.) Read the post here. Stay tuned to her blog "Live from Dallas" for upcoming thoughts on Middle Eastern culture.
Morning Report: May 5, 2004
· Debka on US policy. An analysis by Debka reflects on Bush’s attempts to distance himself from the Likud rejection of Sharon’s Gaza pullout plan. The article also speculates on future moves by the State Department towards implementation of the Road Map.
· Sudden zeal: State, CIA, and Chalabi. (David Frum) Frum’s piece, referenced here earlier, strongly rejects the claim that Chalabi has aided the Iranian regime, and raises pointed questions about the State Department’s motives in making such an allegation, particularly in light of its usual “see-no-evil” approach to Tehran. Watch for more posts on State/Defense relations.
· Omar: Iraqis react to Abu Ghraib; reflections on the media in Iraq; Pachachi wins straw poll. (Iraq the Model) Latest developments in post titled “Old Friends, and a Conversation to Share”.
· Bush must acknowledge challenges. (Belmont Club) A flawed policy is better than a stupid one, says Wretchard; to gain a decisive lead over Kerry, the President must recognize that “the war in Iraq ... has yet to be won”. He must acknowledge “deeply hostile factions in Iraq” and the reality of Iranian and Syrian insurgency, in order to win back his credibility and the public’s trust and support.
· Schools closed in Zimbabwe. (Head Heeb) Jonathan discusses the economics – and politics - of education in Zimbabwe.
· Ginmar’s post on violence and sexism draws responses. (View from a Broad) An American woman soldier discusses rape and domestic violence, prompting a number of other women to share their experiences. Not to be missed.
· Sudden zeal: State, CIA, and Chalabi. (David Frum) Frum’s piece, referenced here earlier, strongly rejects the claim that Chalabi has aided the Iranian regime, and raises pointed questions about the State Department’s motives in making such an allegation, particularly in light of its usual “see-no-evil” approach to Tehran. Watch for more posts on State/Defense relations.
· Omar: Iraqis react to Abu Ghraib; reflections on the media in Iraq; Pachachi wins straw poll. (Iraq the Model) Latest developments in post titled “Old Friends, and a Conversation to Share”.
· Bush must acknowledge challenges. (Belmont Club) A flawed policy is better than a stupid one, says Wretchard; to gain a decisive lead over Kerry, the President must recognize that “the war in Iraq ... has yet to be won”. He must acknowledge “deeply hostile factions in Iraq” and the reality of Iranian and Syrian insurgency, in order to win back his credibility and the public’s trust and support.
· Schools closed in Zimbabwe. (Head Heeb) Jonathan discusses the economics – and politics - of education in Zimbabwe.
· Ginmar’s post on violence and sexism draws responses. (View from a Broad) An American woman soldier discusses rape and domestic violence, prompting a number of other women to share their experiences. Not to be missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)