Dick head."Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero, and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Monday, December 15, 2008
This is not an Iraq War Blog
Dick head."Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero, and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
You're Welcome
On behalf of the defunct yet still poisonous British Empire, I would like to offer a big "no problem, our pleasure" to the rest of the world for ugly emergence of tribal strife in the false construct of Kenya. Just add it to the pile of Palestine/Israel, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and many other countries and regions created out of whole cloth in a back room of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office withought thought to ethnic or regional faultlines, or deliberately buggered up by withdrawing imperial administrators.
We might even be better than the French at this blowback business. By comparison to us and Johnny Frog the Americans are real rookies at this unintended consequences malarkey.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Will Somebody Buy These Idiots Atlases?
Picture via Passionate AmericaOn Friday night I saw Democratic presidential candidate Christopher Dodd interviewed on ABC News. In the course of the interview empty suit/fake journalist Charles Gibson asked Dodd about the birth of his daughter on September 13th, 2001. Dodd hit us with the revelation that one of the doctors attending the birth was Pakistani and the other from Afghanistan. He pointed out that this meant that there is good in everyone, even people from a region that had "just attacked us". Dodd is running on the back of his "extensive foreign policy experience".
Setting aside the stunningly casual racism implied by this remark, do we really consider someone who lumps terrorists from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt with doctors from Pakistan and Afghanistan qualified for the office of president? If this bonehead said that he'd met nice Greeks despite the fact that they elected Hitler and invaded Poland he'd be rightly pelted with mud in the village square. But because he's talking about brown people he's still taken seriously as an outside shot for the White House. Breathtaking.
At least he has the excuse of being a mere politician. National Public Radio maven Linda Wertheimer on the other hand is described as an experienced and knowledgeable journalist with 3 decades of reporting around the world under her belt. With that in mind, I wonder then why she asked veteran political commentator Daniel Schorr on Saturday if President Bush would be making time during his upcoming swing through the middle east to "visit Pakistan".
To his credit, Schorr barely disguised his amazed snort that this question provoked. He concentrated on the security implications of taking the president of the United States to a country where one of the leading politicians had just been assassinated, potentially by Al Qadea, but you could sense that he was itching to get out a map and sit Wertheimer down to show her that a body of water called the Indian Ocean seperates the Arabian penninsula from Pakistan. If she didn't understand that, perhaps he could have used a parallel, something like:
"Linda, the American equivalent of what you just suggested would be Air Force One landing in Chicago and George Bush deplaning and deciding that he'd just pop down the road to see how reconstruction was going in New Orleans."
And yet she is regarded as a wise voice of experience and rare sagacity. Jesus.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Hail Columbia
To the idiots of the right and the idiots of the left who have been raising such a stink (both before and after) about Mahmud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University in New York yesterday, may I offer up my favorite quote of the year originally directed at said Iranian president by Columbia President Lee Bollinger:
"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”
The New York Times has extensive coverage of the brouhaha here, but suffice it to say I'm with those who believe that free speech was served yesterday not least because Ahmadinejad proved himself to be a first class buffoon.
Ahmadinejad suggested at Columbia that Iran doesn't have homosexuals. To prove it, here's the Revolutionary Guard looking very butch and not at all poofy
The New York Times has extensive coverage of the brouhaha here, but suffice it to say I'm with those who believe that free speech was served yesterday not least because Ahmadinejad proved himself to be a first class buffoon.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Operation Constant Vigilance
As noted in the comments in the previous post, more people seem comfortable with cakes than espionage but I did want to mention one thing from the Milton Bearden lunch the other day before heading into the weekend. Asked how (Hindu) Bollywood movies and (Arab) Al Jazeera news broadcasts were changing the conservative culture of Afghanistan, Bearden demured but did note that President Bush was so obsessed with the idea that the Al Jazeera news crawl was sending coded messages to Al Qadea that he ordered the text to be constantly run through an NSA Cray super computer to dry to crack the code. It was such a big deal to him that in Bearden's words it resembled "Captain Queeg and the strawberries".
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Bush then insisted that if you played the audio book of Knights Under the Prophets Banner backwards it says "death to America, kill George Bush". Nevermind that it says that going forwards, but still, eh?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Dear Diary...
Had lunch Monday (along with about 80 others) with Milton Bearden, the former CIA chap who was head of station in Islamabad, Pakistan and who delivered the war-changing Stinger missiles to the Afghan Muj during their war against the Soviets. He later served as Eastern Europe honcho during the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. It can be said that he did his bit to hasten the demise of the ol' Evil Empire, but yesterday his comments over the caesar salad were mostly directed as to why the current lot running US foreign policy were about as much use as tits on a nun (I paraphrase). Most interesting, all told.
Its fascinating to me, who wanders past the transom when one stays moored to a spot long enough.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
How Very Predictable
While looking for the latest on the 15 British sailors and marines hanging on in Tehran's Hijab Hilton I accidentally stepped in a big pile of Melanie Phillips' column from the insufferable Daily Mail of March 28th. The very fact that Phillips' spews on behalf of the Hate Mail and is the author of a laughable book called Londonistan should discount her as an authoritative source on matters Middle Eastern, but I have to admit I had only rarely read her filth and was in the mood for a bit of rough, so I took the plunge. Here's some of the choicer cuts:
"Admiral Lord Nelson must be revolving in his grave. While on patrol in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq, 15 Royal Marines and sailors were seized by Iran on a trumped up charge that they had entered Iranian waters.....
We have consistently shown we are not prepared to defend ourselves. In 2004, the British servicemen who were kidnapped by Iran were spirited to Tehran and paraded blindfold on television, which broadcast their apprehensive apologies for a ‘big mistake’. It was an act of war against us. We let them get away with it....
Third, we should announce that we are seeking a UN resolution condemning the kidnap of our Marines and enabling us to use ‘all necessary means’ to get them back. And we should back this up with some significant moves by a couple of frigates. In short, we need to rattle some sabres through a far more muscular and indeed coercive diplomacy...." (the rest of this crap is here, if you must)
How nice of Ms. Phillips, a woman of late middle age and as far as I can tell no military reserve obligations, to offer up the lives of young British servicemen and women in pursuit of some vague notion of national outrage (outrage missing, it appears, from Britain's High Streets). We don't want to lose you but we think you ought to go, and all that. Perhaps in an effort to drum up troops for her proposed diversionary effort she'd like to stand outside some of Britain's rougher housing estates handing out white feathers to those of military age not in uniform. Wikipedia notes she has two children: if they are of age, can we presume they are doing their bit for the Union Jack, defending British honour against johnny foreigner and reminding him whose empire it is anyway?
Of course, Ms. Phillips makes no mention as to why Britain's name is mud in Iran, and has been long before any of the Ayatollahs were born. For those of you interested in the subject,this book is a decent place to start; if you want to get a grip on the Anglo-Iranian thing in the context of American policy, this one is rather good. But for Phillips that would of course mean reading things that don't cleave to her pre-existing world view. Of course seizing the sailors was a dumb move (didn't the Iranians understand that Royal Navy tars on shore for more than 20 minutes without access to cheap lager become unmanageable?) but acting as if the Iranians had given the Queen a dirty sanchez is even dumber.
Oh and Phillips, take your horrible mitts off Nelson, thank you very much. We Norfolk types don't care for his misappropriation by idiots. To suggest that Horatio would have chased pell mell after the Iranians betrays a breathtaking ignorance of the great man's methods. Bold and decisive he may have been, but he was also a meticulous planner who never fought a battle half-cocked or on terms of another's choosing.
Notwithstanding the above, I may have to start reading Phillips' column on a regular basis, if only to read her inevitable insistence that the British Government reactivate the Bengal Lancers to pursue the killers of cricket coach Bob Woolmer lest Britain's national honour wither on the vine.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
History Friday on a Wednesday: "Civis Romanus Sum"
I was going to subtitle this rare "History Friday on a Wednesday" post "Gunboat Diplomacy", but the excellent Flying Rodent beat me to it. Pop over there and read his stuff, there's a bunch of loves, as he's rather splendid.
Anyway, to my post. With 15 British merry Matelots and bolshy Booties under lock and key somewhere in deepest, darkest Iran, HMS Cornwall and her flotilla bobbing about sheepishly in the Shatt al Arab, and Tony Blair mumbling about how this sort of thing is just not on, one's thoughts wander back to the 1850s and the days of Prime Minister "Leg Over" Palmerston. Most specifically, the Pacifico Incident and the birth of gunboat diplomacy.
To quote (in it's entirety) the entry on the Pacifico Incident from The History of Great Britain:
"The decade of the Great Exhibition begins with an event which suggests a new British attitude to foreign policy. This is the approach later characterized as gunboat diplomacy, in which military force is used to impose the nation's will on another country.
Known as the Don Pacifico incident, the event concerns a Portuguese Jew of that name trading in Athens. When an anti-Semitic crowd burns his house, in 1847, he sues the Greek government for damages - with little result, until he appeals to Britain for help on the grounds that he is a British citizen (as a result of being born in Gibraltar).
The Liberal foreign secretary, Palmerston, provokes fierce controversy by the vigour of his response. He sends a naval squadron into the Aegean in 1850 to seize Greek ships to the value of Don Pacifico's claim. Censured in the house of lords, Palmerston wins a majority for his action in the commons where he argues that 'a British citizen, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong'.
Four years later the watchful eye and strong arm of England are in the care of a Conservative prime minister, Lord Aberdeen. He too sends warships to the Aegean to back up diplomacy, this time in support of Turkey.
A joint British and French fleet steams through the Dardanelles in 1854 as a gesture of warning to Russia. The result in this case is full-scale war in the Crimea. A few years later Britain and France again act together in distant waters. They use two minor incidents which would normally be the stuff of diplomacy (in the British case the offence of some Chinese officials in 1856 in boarding a British merchant ship and lowering the red ensign) as a pretext for launching a renewal of the Opium Wars.
The steam-assisted warship has made it possible, as never before, for a strong nation to police the entire world in its own interest. And to an unprecedented degree ordinary members of the public now feel closely in touch with events."
Not that I'm advocating for a minute that anything like that would work in this case (after all, the presence of our gunboats provoked their gunboats to attack our gunboats, etc, etc ad nauseam). But it must have been fun in the high Victorian era, and not just because of the outrageous facial hair.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
What Have These Two Got To Be So Happy About?
I reckon one of them told the old "Why did the suicide bomber cross the road? To blow up a pizza joint" joke. It wasn't funny the first time Ismail told it Mahmoud, so I don't know wht you are laughing so much now. Both of you: off to your rubble strewn compounds to think about being more thoughtful.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Another Slam Dunk?
From today's New York Times:
Bush Declares Iran's Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain
It does seem a little odd however that Iran- while no doubt supportive of the Shia extremists blamed by Bush for the death of around 170 US troops- would be named as the prime cause of violence while the external supporters of Sunni insurgents who killed most of the remaining 2,800 dead Americans get a pass.
I wonder why no fingers are being pointed at Sunni states terrified of Iranian- and by extension, Shia- power like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It has been credibly alleged by various intelligence agencies that Saudi Arabia has been arming and training Sunni extremists so that they have to fight the Shia in Iraq, not at home (and more credibly than any allegation leveled at Iran). That sounds like a familiar justification, doesn't it? The Saudis also recently made overtly bellicose noises at the time of the Baker Hamilton Report about intervening in Iraq should the Americans withdraw. I wonder why we aren't pointing fingers across Iraq's southern border rather than it's eastern one?
I dare say Iran is meddling in Iraq. It is in their interests to do so, as anything that keeps the Americans flustered and in reactive mode keeps the Americans out of Tehran. But as for the very specific charges made by the President against them, I'm not so sure. How would such easily traceable, amateur tactics be in their interest?
I'm going to hear Bush out in the vain hope that he's learned his lessons and is playing with a straight bat this time, but foremost in my mind when assessing his arguments will be the following:
1) With the Shia in control of the most important arms of government- including the ministries responsible for the police and army- why do they need home-made IEDs when they have access to government munitions dumps? Many of the unofficial militias and death squads seem to have no problems getting their hands on the latest uniforms for disguises and they are always armed to the teeth.
2) Did anyone reference Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's (himself a Kurd) recent visit to Tehran where offical promises of defense supplies were made to him by the Iranians? An event so un-cloak and dagger that it was reported in a profile of the man in the New Yorker? Are legitimately supplied weapons- some Iranian, some old Iraqi, some even American- being syphoned off by the insurgents? And if so, are we going to declare war on ourselves for losing track of weapons and money that found their way into the hands of the various insurgencies?
3) The number of references to Iranian-Al Qadea links that are ideologically unlikely to exist. First hint: when the adminstration flacks start referring to "Al Qadea leaders under house arrest" in Iran while deemphasizing the key word, "arrest".
4) The dispositions of the various Iraqi Shia groups, from the more mainstream Iraq-for-the-(Shia)-Arabs-not-Iranians followers of Ayatollah Al Sistani, through the more gangsterish Mahdi Army of Sadr, to the explicitly pro-Iranian Badr Brigades found mostly in the south. Who feels imune from the security crackdown? Who is reacting the most boldly? Whose actions most closely mirror official Iranian pronouncements?
5) Do members of Bush's administration appear to be speaking from a script? Sycronized references to "smoking guns" etc should be a real tip off that they are full of it. Again.
UPDATE: Alexander Cockburn in a similar vein, with more on the alleged Iranian weapons technology, here.
Bush Declares Iran's Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain
It does seem a little odd however that Iran- while no doubt supportive of the Shia extremists blamed by Bush for the death of around 170 US troops- would be named as the prime cause of violence while the external supporters of Sunni insurgents who killed most of the remaining 2,800 dead Americans get a pass.
I wonder why no fingers are being pointed at Sunni states terrified of Iranian- and by extension, Shia- power like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It has been credibly alleged by various intelligence agencies that Saudi Arabia has been arming and training Sunni extremists so that they have to fight the Shia in Iraq, not at home (and more credibly than any allegation leveled at Iran). That sounds like a familiar justification, doesn't it? The Saudis also recently made overtly bellicose noises at the time of the Baker Hamilton Report about intervening in Iraq should the Americans withdraw. I wonder why we aren't pointing fingers across Iraq's southern border rather than it's eastern one?
I dare say Iran is meddling in Iraq. It is in their interests to do so, as anything that keeps the Americans flustered and in reactive mode keeps the Americans out of Tehran. But as for the very specific charges made by the President against them, I'm not so sure. How would such easily traceable, amateur tactics be in their interest?
I'm going to hear Bush out in the vain hope that he's learned his lessons and is playing with a straight bat this time, but foremost in my mind when assessing his arguments will be the following:
1) With the Shia in control of the most important arms of government- including the ministries responsible for the police and army- why do they need home-made IEDs when they have access to government munitions dumps? Many of the unofficial militias and death squads seem to have no problems getting their hands on the latest uniforms for disguises and they are always armed to the teeth.
2) Did anyone reference Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's (himself a Kurd) recent visit to Tehran where offical promises of defense supplies were made to him by the Iranians? An event so un-cloak and dagger that it was reported in a profile of the man in the New Yorker? Are legitimately supplied weapons- some Iranian, some old Iraqi, some even American- being syphoned off by the insurgents? And if so, are we going to declare war on ourselves for losing track of weapons and money that found their way into the hands of the various insurgencies?
3) The number of references to Iranian-Al Qadea links that are ideologically unlikely to exist. First hint: when the adminstration flacks start referring to "Al Qadea leaders under house arrest" in Iran while deemphasizing the key word, "arrest".
4) The dispositions of the various Iraqi Shia groups, from the more mainstream Iraq-for-the-(Shia)-Arabs-not-Iranians followers of Ayatollah Al Sistani, through the more gangsterish Mahdi Army of Sadr, to the explicitly pro-Iranian Badr Brigades found mostly in the south. Who feels imune from the security crackdown? Who is reacting the most boldly? Whose actions most closely mirror official Iranian pronouncements?
5) Do members of Bush's administration appear to be speaking from a script? Sycronized references to "smoking guns" etc should be a real tip off that they are full of it. Again.
UPDATE: Alexander Cockburn in a similar vein, with more on the alleged Iranian weapons technology, here.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Get In On The Ground Floor....
Do you own a cellphone with camera or streaming video technology?
You do???
You lucky bugger!Forget about polyphonic ring tones or whatever and all that bother; that's soooooooooo 2006. You have one of them nice phones mate, with the pictures and the video and all. You don't need sounds when your phone rings, you need:
images!!!!
And what is the most talked about series of images of our short year so far?
No, not those shots of Brittney's hoohaah. Or Howie Mandel lying on his side smiling, as we call them in these parts. Here's a clue: even world leaders are a-talkin' about them. Everyone thinks they are a bit iffy.
Got it yet?
Nice work genius- yep, it'sThe hanging of Saddam Hussein!!!
Say no to ring tones, and instead download a:Swing-Tone!!!
By the envy of your friends and be the first on the block to be alerted to incoming calls with video of the botched and barbaric dangling of a despot!(First ten subscribers get a free bonus selection of personal voicemail notifiers: choose from Saddam's guards shouting "kick those feet, you sunni pig!" or any track from the Clash's Give 'Em Enough Rope).
Only $2 a download; don't delay....
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
History Friday on a Wednesday
Just one more. And it is totally relevant, so lay off with the egghead, boffin business:
On This Day, Feb 1: 1979: Exiled Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran
The Ayatollah - a title meaning Gift of God - emerged from his chartered plane looking tired and tearful to meet the 1,500 religious and political leaders allowed to meet him in the terminal building....He was openly belligerent towards the current government of Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar.
"These people are trying to bring back the regime of the late Shah or another regime. I will strike with my fists at the mouths of this government. From now on it is I who will name the government," he claimed.
Dr Bakhtair responded by saying: "Don't worry about this kind of speech. That is Khomeini. He is free to speak but he is not free to act."
Ooops, Dr. Bakhtair. Misjudged that one, didn't we?
"You like me! You really like me!"
On This Day, Feb 1: 1979: Exiled Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran
The Ayatollah - a title meaning Gift of God - emerged from his chartered plane looking tired and tearful to meet the 1,500 religious and political leaders allowed to meet him in the terminal building....He was openly belligerent towards the current government of Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar.
"These people are trying to bring back the regime of the late Shah or another regime. I will strike with my fists at the mouths of this government. From now on it is I who will name the government," he claimed.
Dr Bakhtair responded by saying: "Don't worry about this kind of speech. That is Khomeini. He is free to speak but he is not free to act."
Ooops, Dr. Bakhtair. Misjudged that one, didn't we?
Monday, August 15, 2005
Farsi Fission Freakout
WEASEL UNIVERSITY ONLINE: THE PERSIAN PROBLEM, OR JUST WHERE ARE THOSE IRANIAN MISSILES GOING TO BE POINTED?
Sit down class. Question one: why are the Iranians allegedly chasing a nuclear bomb? No Bush the Younger, not because they are 'evildoers'- you haven't been paying attention at all these past four years, have you? Well, for all of you who want to know more about the subject but don't have the time to wade through acres of paper or megabytes of websites, Professor Wisdom W. Weasel is here with his own highly speculative and mildly researched Q&A on the Iranian nuclear program. Read on at your own peril.
Q. Why is your map funny colors?
A. Because good maps that show the specific part of the world we are talking about are hard to pinch off the net.
Q. So why this map then?
A. Well, if you look in the bottom left-center, you'll find Iran. Look left and there's Iraq. Further left but off the map is nuclear armed Israel. To the right is Afghanistan and to the north the former central asian republics of the old Soviet Union. Further to the right of the map are three nuclear armed powers; Pakistan, India, and China. To the north is nuclear armed Russia, but you have to get through Chechnya and a couple of other unstable crazy towns to get there. Oh, and not shown on the map but stradling northern Iran, Iraq, and Turkey are the largest ethnic group in the world without a dedicated country, the Kurds.
Q. So what?
A. Well, the key to understanding Iran's desire to become a nuclear power can be found in the geo-political situation it finds itself in. Hence the map.
Q. Gigga-wha?
A. No, geo-politics. What makes Iran unique?
Q. Now you are asking me questions?
A. Yes.
Q. The wine 'Chardonnay' is named after its former king?
A. Nice guess, but wrong spelling of 'shah'. No, Iran is the only majority shia muslim country in the world governed by members of that sect. Iraq is majority shia, but should they ever finish writing a constitution in that poor, benightened country the shia will most likely have been pressured into playing nice with their kurdish and sunni compatriots resulting in a tripartate government structure about as stable as the one enshrined in the Lebanese constitution (but that's another Q&A).
Q. Big whupp.
A. Sarcasm does not suit you. Iran has a justifiable degree of paranoia about being surrounded by sunni dominated countries, given that no less an authority than the wahabbi sect of sunni Islam that predominates in our 'ally' Saudi Arabia, the Pakistani military intelligence arm, and Al Qadea condemns shi'ites as apostates. Between the 16th and the mid 18th century England faced similar challenges and fears as the most prominent Protestant nation adrift on a sea of militant and armed Catholicism, so the world has seen this kind of thing before.
Q. So the Iranians want nukes to protect themselves from the sunnis?
A. In part, but that would be too easy and explanation.
Q. -Groan-
A. Iran is on the periphery of the upcoming superpower tug-of-war of the 21st Century-
Q. The USA and China?
A. Actually, China and India. Now bitter economic rivals, with ideological differences in spades, India and China have already had a couple of shooting run-ins up around their shared border (back in the 60s or 70s China siezed control of a chunk of disputed territory from India; a sub-continental Alsace-Lorraine a la France's beef with Germany from 1870 to 1918). Both seek to be the voice of Asia in this new century and have aspirations to punch in their weight class in international institutions. China's concerns about India run deep- to the extent of maintaining a strategic relationship with India's blood enemy Pakistan (Pakistani arms shipments into their 'strategic depth' neighbor Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets ran along the 'Sino-Pak' highway over Chinese laid asphalt. The Pakistani military supported the Afghan muj for religious, ethnic, and security reasons; the Soviets were arming India, the muj trained Kashmiri militants to bleed India, and a stable, fundamentalist Afghanistan ruled by Pakistan's Pashtun kin gave Islamabad room to retreat and still fight if attacked by Indian conventional forces. This is why Pakistan backed the horrifically stabilizing Taleaban). India and China are nuclear powers, as is China's potential ally Pakistan.
Q. So Iran wants nukes in order to join the aspirant superpower dance?
A. Well, maybe. But more likely its in order to force its eastern neighbors to think about Iran when carving up the map and before they decide to throw their weight around like European powers in the late 19th century. For some reason the mullahs believe that Iran, its oil, and its quirky version of islam will be at risk should China and India start jockeying for position, or should Pakistan's current government be replaced by sunni extremists, or should the Taleaban continue their rebirth.
Q. But isn't Iran an extremist supporter of terrorism? What do they have to fear from other islamic extremists?
A. Undoubtedly. But the weird thing is- and I never thought I'd have to say this kind of thing- a state sponsor of terrorism is a much less dangerous beast than an ideological franchise like Al Qadea. Along with spreading the islamic revolution laid out by Kohmeni (more akin actually to Stalin's 'Socialism in One Country' concept than the internationalism of Leon Trotsky), the mullahs have a country to run, an economy to grow, and a population to keep quiet. To the latter end, a nuclear program appeals to Iranian nationalism and deflects attention from internal woes onto external enemies, but the post-Shah Iran is a mature society lacking the white heat of revolution (their war with Iraq put paid to much of that). Like everywhere else, Iranians are more concerned with their economic well being than with continuously emulating the prophet's march on Mecca. With my suposition that their desire to aquire nuclear weapons is a form of insurance, I dont see them giving a suitcase nuke to their proxy Hizbollah to use on Israel or America- something tells me that Tehran would be vaporized in response. Non-state actors like bin Laden don't have those worries. Also, when you operate out of a cave paying for things from your own private fortune you can expend energy on multiple enemies- the USA, Europe, Israel, and those you consider deviants from your own religion. Now, bin Laden wouldn't worry about an Iranian nuclear strike, but the governments or tribal leaders who shelter him most certainly would.
Q. So you are suggesting that an nuclear armed Iran would make us safer from Al Qadea?
A. Not for a second. But the Iranian government believes it would make them safer from a multitude of threats, That they believe that doesn't make them right, but nobody said world leaders had a monopoly on clear headed rationalism.
Q. What about the threat to us or to Israel?
A. First, I refer you to the last but one answer. They could try to hit Israel, but won't for the same reason the Soviets never nuked us- MAD. Also, the Iranians lack a suitable delivery system to hit the USA, or even Europe. Like Iraq, the best they will be able to muster is a homegrown variant on the Scud, or some piece of shoddy North Korean or Chinese missile kit. Do you think a North Korean missile delivery technology is going to make it undetected through the espionage cordon around the penninsula? China could be a problem- they need access to oil and might be induced to trade. But should an Iranian missile be seen atop a Chinese delivery system in a parade or spy-photo be prepared for a distinct cooling of cooperation economically and over Taiwan, China's priority number one. As for weakening our interests and friends, the Iranians have pretty much had a free ride for their proxy terrorism since the eighties (in Lebanon, Kofar Towers, Hizbollah, hijackings, etc) and have calmed things down since the end of the first Iraq War. As for Iraq itself, the Iranians don't need nukes- they have a carefully built and deep running connection with significant elements of the shia majority that means they can conduct policy subtly and through third parties in order to try and look out for their interests.
Q. So why are we freaked out?
A. Because any new country getting nukes is a serious issue. Things go wrong; coups happen. And limiting nukes is generally considered to be a good idea. Besides (and can you really claim to be surprised?) Iran appears to be talking out of both sides of its mouth claiming to negotiate to the outside world while telling Iranians it was only playing for time; suggesting that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued anti-nuclear weapons fatwas and loudly protesting their innocence while not really offering any convincing reasons as to why they need nuclear power.
Q. So what can we do? Are we going to go to war with Iran?
A. Part one of your question- there is a real case for the USA to step back and to pressure China into using its economic leverage and assumed regional clout (given their increasing economic relationship with Iran and their energy resources; relationships the USA chose to forgo through sanctions. Additionally, the Chinese aren't seen as responsible for maintaining the repressive regime of the Shah for decades. Imagine the British asking George Washington to not to build warships in the aftermath of the American Revolution while calling him an evil arsehole and you can imagine how well received American overtures are in Terhan. Notice they called America alone the "Great Satan", not western culture in general). Indeed, this week's The Economist suggests the very same thing, with the added bonus that a nuclear negotiator China could probably squeeze North Korea. As for part two, it all depends on what those maniacs in the Bush Administration had for breakfast.
Q. Is that it then?
A. I guess- you are the one asking the questions. Are you done?
Yeah, Sportscenter is on.
Professor Wisdom W. Weasel welcomes further questions and peer review (especially by his esteemed colleague Brooklyn Jim). That is if you read this far, you ADHD sport obsessed, insular bastards. Elk nipples! Just checking to see if you made it to the bottom
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Here Come The Cronkite Moments.
Living in Maine I often have to make my own entertainment, and one of my favorite fogeyish pursuits of recent years has been sitting down at the kitchen table on a Friday night to make something (cranberry vodka, soup, seedling trays, etc) or drink something while listening to the radio.
Thanks to the invasion of the channel snatchers (Clear Channel, Cumulus, et al) commercial radio playlists are more sychronised than the menstrual cycles of women jail inmates, as without fail all of them play the Allman Brothers at 7pm nightly. On the other hand, the local community station's offerings of Bambutu M'tba's Xylophone orchestra etc can be a little too earnest for a Friday night. The CD player on the kitchen stereo is broken. Therefore my default listening is Maine Public Radio, and in particular a charming and gentle big band/trad jazz show called "The humble Farmer."
The host, humble Farmer (aka Robert Skoglund) is a genial type; much given to puns and wordplay. He can be annoying; the expression of his "humbleness" by using the lower case for his nickname is a case in point. He certainly is not a controversial character nor professional agitator. Therefore I am very sad that I missed last Friday's show, as humble offered up some telling and significant insight into the thinking of middle class America. My good friend Richard was kind enough to forward me humble's thoughts from Friday night. I have reproduced it below; I hope you find the eloquent unarticulated parallels to the situation in Iraq and the United States as arresting as I did.
"Did you see Rommel's grandson on TV? Must have been Public Television, because no other channel would carry such an interesting program. Brought back memories. When I was a kid I heard about Rommel, The old Desert Fox. My grandfather Skoglund would crank up the radio as loud as it would go and then he'd sit next to it with his hand behind his ear to find out what Rommel was doing.
Which reminds me that someone sent me an email that explains why some Americans are now wearing red on Fridays. The email says, Quote: "When Norway was occupied by Germany in 1940, Norwegian women began to knit RED caps for children as a way of letting everyone know that they did not like what was happening in their country, that they didn't like having their freedom taken away by the Nazis.
My great aunt, Karin Knudson Myrstad, was one of the women who knit red caps for her children and others. Similarly, in Denmark, women knit red-white-and blue caps (colors of the Allies) for the very same reason.
The result was that whenever Norwegians and Danes left their homes -- to go to the store, to work, etc, they could see that THE MAJORITY opposed what was going on in their country. As you know, both countries organized effective Resistance efforts and changed history -- everything that happened began simply by wearing red! (or the colors of the Allies, in Denmark)." End of quote.
I think that the person who sent out this email should remember that the young boys that Hitler sent into Denmark and Norway did not think that they were taking away freedom. You can't blame the kids. They had been told that they were bringing freedom and a new and better form of government to some backward people who were ruled by kings. For years, Hitler's troops, these young kids, had been taught to believe that they were the freedom fighters. So when they finally went into Norway and
Denmark, they knew they were part of Hitler's glorious effort to
establish order and free an enslaved people from archaic and oppressive governments. Of course, there are always a few puppet sympathizers, and Vidkun Quisling, who welcomed the occupying German soldiers, is the Norwegian Benedict Arnold.
Resistance efforts? The Danes and Norwegians might have thought that they were defending their homes and country in a resistance effort, but Hitler's troops didn't see as resistance these people who schemed and plotted in cellars. The Danes or Norwegians who opposed Hitler's soldiers were fanatical insurgents who should be shot on sight.
If you were one of Hitler's brighter soldiers, and you told one of your superior officers that in spite of what you'd been told, you were getting tired of helping Danes and Norwegians set up a better form of government, what do you think would have happened to you?
And imagine what was going on back home in Germany. What would have happened to a German citizen who refused to pay taxes to a government that tried to protect Germans by sending tanks into Africa. "Hey Hitler, what you doing way down there in Africa with all them tanks you bought with my tax dollars? When you started this thing, you said you were protecting us from crazy people in Austria and Poland. How many crazy Poles you expecting to find in Africa?" That tax payer would have seen his property auctioned off and Hitler and Rommel would have bought even
more tanks with the proceeds.
Anyway, I want to thank whoever it was that produced that TV show on Rommel, because it gave me an excuse to read up a bit more about Hitler and how he snuck up behind a very intelligent people and slipped fascism in on them before they knew what hit them. Mein Kampf and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich are some of my favorite reading. If you ever want to understand the basic principles of propaganda, if you ever want to read something scarier and more unbelievable than Stephen King, read
what it's like to live under a fascist dictatorship. Read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. They burned books.
And movies. You can't appreciate the freedom we have here in America until you read how the Nazis censored movies. Do you think that the Nazis would let the German people see a movie that criticized the way Hitler was spreading his brand of freedom?
Young people might not understand why some of us old folks, who survived Hitler and his friends, still talk about the war, but people of my generation, and that probably includes Rommel's grandson, --- we can't forget that the fascists were very scary guys."
wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Thanks to the invasion of the channel snatchers (Clear Channel, Cumulus, et al) commercial radio playlists are more sychronised than the menstrual cycles of women jail inmates, as without fail all of them play the Allman Brothers at 7pm nightly. On the other hand, the local community station's offerings of Bambutu M'tba's Xylophone orchestra etc can be a little too earnest for a Friday night. The CD player on the kitchen stereo is broken. Therefore my default listening is Maine Public Radio, and in particular a charming and gentle big band/trad jazz show called "The humble Farmer."
The host, humble Farmer (aka Robert Skoglund) is a genial type; much given to puns and wordplay. He can be annoying; the expression of his "humbleness" by using the lower case for his nickname is a case in point. He certainly is not a controversial character nor professional agitator. Therefore I am very sad that I missed last Friday's show, as humble offered up some telling and significant insight into the thinking of middle class America. My good friend Richard was kind enough to forward me humble's thoughts from Friday night. I have reproduced it below; I hope you find the eloquent unarticulated parallels to the situation in Iraq and the United States as arresting as I did.
"Did you see Rommel's grandson on TV? Must have been Public Television, because no other channel would carry such an interesting program. Brought back memories. When I was a kid I heard about Rommel, The old Desert Fox. My grandfather Skoglund would crank up the radio as loud as it would go and then he'd sit next to it with his hand behind his ear to find out what Rommel was doing.
Which reminds me that someone sent me an email that explains why some Americans are now wearing red on Fridays. The email says, Quote: "When Norway was occupied by Germany in 1940, Norwegian women began to knit RED caps for children as a way of letting everyone know that they did not like what was happening in their country, that they didn't like having their freedom taken away by the Nazis.
My great aunt, Karin Knudson Myrstad, was one of the women who knit red caps for her children and others. Similarly, in Denmark, women knit red-white-and blue caps (colors of the Allies) for the very same reason.
The result was that whenever Norwegians and Danes left their homes -- to go to the store, to work, etc, they could see that THE MAJORITY opposed what was going on in their country. As you know, both countries organized effective Resistance efforts and changed history -- everything that happened began simply by wearing red! (or the colors of the Allies, in Denmark)." End of quote.
I think that the person who sent out this email should remember that the young boys that Hitler sent into Denmark and Norway did not think that they were taking away freedom. You can't blame the kids. They had been told that they were bringing freedom and a new and better form of government to some backward people who were ruled by kings. For years, Hitler's troops, these young kids, had been taught to believe that they were the freedom fighters. So when they finally went into Norway and
Denmark, they knew they were part of Hitler's glorious effort to
establish order and free an enslaved people from archaic and oppressive governments. Of course, there are always a few puppet sympathizers, and Vidkun Quisling, who welcomed the occupying German soldiers, is the Norwegian Benedict Arnold.
Resistance efforts? The Danes and Norwegians might have thought that they were defending their homes and country in a resistance effort, but Hitler's troops didn't see as resistance these people who schemed and plotted in cellars. The Danes or Norwegians who opposed Hitler's soldiers were fanatical insurgents who should be shot on sight.
If you were one of Hitler's brighter soldiers, and you told one of your superior officers that in spite of what you'd been told, you were getting tired of helping Danes and Norwegians set up a better form of government, what do you think would have happened to you?
And imagine what was going on back home in Germany. What would have happened to a German citizen who refused to pay taxes to a government that tried to protect Germans by sending tanks into Africa. "Hey Hitler, what you doing way down there in Africa with all them tanks you bought with my tax dollars? When you started this thing, you said you were protecting us from crazy people in Austria and Poland. How many crazy Poles you expecting to find in Africa?" That tax payer would have seen his property auctioned off and Hitler and Rommel would have bought even
more tanks with the proceeds.
Anyway, I want to thank whoever it was that produced that TV show on Rommel, because it gave me an excuse to read up a bit more about Hitler and how he snuck up behind a very intelligent people and slipped fascism in on them before they knew what hit them. Mein Kampf and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich are some of my favorite reading. If you ever want to understand the basic principles of propaganda, if you ever want to read something scarier and more unbelievable than Stephen King, read
what it's like to live under a fascist dictatorship. Read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. They burned books.
And movies. You can't appreciate the freedom we have here in America until you read how the Nazis censored movies. Do you think that the Nazis would let the German people see a movie that criticized the way Hitler was spreading his brand of freedom?
Young people might not understand why some of us old folks, who survived Hitler and his friends, still talk about the war, but people of my generation, and that probably includes Rommel's grandson, --- we can't forget that the fascists were very scary guys."
wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Disturbing Times
Last week two sets of serious allegations about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq emerged, one for each side of the Atlantic. Last Wednesday, CBS News broke the story in the United States that American military personnel had engaged in systematic mental and physical torture of Iraqi prisoners. Then on Friday night the English newspaper the Daily Mirror ran a story of British soldiers clubbing handcuffed Iraqis with their rifles, then urinating on them (there is a debate raging in Britain over the veracity of those photos. The BBC has good coverage of the issue: Army photos: Claims and rebuttals)
Both stories were accompanied by incontrovertible photographic evidence of these assaults carried out by coalition troops (apparently taken for the album back home by the grinning perpetrators) and denunciations from the respective political and military hierarchies in Washington and London. We are told that those who indulged in these behaviors were “rogue elements” and “a disgrace to the uniform” and that they will be vigorously dealt with by the court martial process.
I certainly agree that those responsible are reprehensible human beings and I applaud the rigor of the condemnations from our leaders. Exactly how “rogue” these actions were will no doubt be uncovered by the course of the investigation, although one of the accused American NCOs has been claiming that the mistreatment of prisoners resulted from direct orders given by shadowy civilian military contractors (less hermetically known as mercenaries.) How widespread the knowledge of these abuses reached up the official chain of command will hopefully emerge during the courts martial.
However the question must be asked, loudly and often, as to how these professional soldiers came to think that these assaults were acceptable. It is common practice to demonize an enemy before battle, as it makes the killing that will take place easier to bear psychologically. Once an enemy is captured or has surrendered however, both honor and the Geneva conventions dictate humane treatment. Given that one of the ostensible reasons for the coalition’s presence in Iraq is to fly the banner of democratic values, it should pain all of us that this vileness was allowed to emerge from the ranks of what both sides of the pond are told are the “best, most professional armies in the world.” The trouble is that while only a few “rogue” elements have seen fit to act on their disgusting, inhuman impulses there is a permissive culture towards brutalism in both armies.
I support the troops. I come from a military family, and I know first hand the sacrifices made by service personnel in return for lousy pay, keyed-up boredom, and moments of high danger. But I also bear in mind the maxim expressed by the Duke of Wellington on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo: “I do not know what our men do to the French, but they scare the hell out of me.” Fighting units and their support arms (military police, etc) have to be brutal, savage combatants. Yet, believing as I do that every human being can conceive of at least two separate lines of thought simultaneously, they also have to be professional enough to put the brakes on. The best army units apply force within a disciplined continuum.
The American and British troops serving in Iraq are under a microscope; their individual actions and inactions can have an impact on the post-war landscape of the entire region. One photograph of an Iraqi humiliated and beaten could be the trigger for the next Mohammed Atta. Nobody is perfect, but every soldier knows that the treatment of prisoners and civilians is not subject to improvisation as clear laws and rules do exist.
The problem might be that the coalition troops do not see the Iraqis as a liberated population but rather as a defeated enemy. When an army allows its troops to refer to all Arabs (enemy soldier, guerilla/terrorist, civilian, and ally alike) as “camel jockeys” and “towel heads” the dehumanization that leads to humiliation, casual hooliganism, and torture has begun. The inability to control the basest behaviors of soldiers smacks of poor leadership and an institutional failure.
I have little patience with those who are ready to draw historically dubious comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam after a scant 13 months. However, there is one aspect of that dismal Southeast Asian conflict that does seem relevant to these abuses in Iraq, and its one that has been back in the news as an aspect of the presidential campaign.
Back in 1971, John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about abuses, torture, and crimes committed by US servicemen in Vietnam. As decorated combat veterans of that conflict, Kerry and his colleagues in Vietnam Veterans Against The War were able to give eye- witness accounts of the abuses, and backed them up in repeated press interviews, including one infamous encounter on Meet the Press.
I say infamous because on April 18, 2004 on the same show, Tim Russett decided to take Kerry to task for his testimony 23 years previously. Suggesting that “a lot” of Kerry’s allegations had been discredited, Russett tried to hold the Democratic contender’s feet to the fire and cast doubt on his suitability for the Oval Office. To his discredit, Kerry vacillated and waffled rather than stand by the courageous actions of his youth.
The unpleasant and unavoidable truth, highlighted by Kerry all those years ago, is that torture and human rights abuses were both prolific and horrific in Vietnam. This has been backed up by hours and hours of testimony, memoir, and confession. Most recently, The Toledo Blade of Ohio won a Pulitzer Prize this year for its illumination of a campaign of unrelenting human rights abuses by a specific army unit over a seven-month period.
The fact that similar allegations are now emerging in Iraq suggest that people like Russett are both in the wrong and doing the world a grave disservice. By attacking the whistle blowers for their courageous stand against inhuman behavior rather than turning the spotlight on the complacency, permissiveness, and institutional brutality that leads to this torture they risk perpetuating this pattern of abuse that has damaging effects far beyond those on the immediate perpetrators and victims.
It is a damning indictment of America’s failure to learn from the disaster of Vietnam that these abuses have been taking place in Iraq. Maybe we should think twice before trying to forcibly export our brand of democracy, given that we seem fundamentally incapable of mature examination of our own weaknesses.
George W. Bush famously claimed “they hate us for our freedoms.” No Mr. President, they hate us for our arrogance, our casual xenophobia, our ignorance, and our callow refusal to examine the institutional failures that lead to the torture of prisoners.
Write to me: wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Both stories were accompanied by incontrovertible photographic evidence of these assaults carried out by coalition troops (apparently taken for the album back home by the grinning perpetrators) and denunciations from the respective political and military hierarchies in Washington and London. We are told that those who indulged in these behaviors were “rogue elements” and “a disgrace to the uniform” and that they will be vigorously dealt with by the court martial process.
I certainly agree that those responsible are reprehensible human beings and I applaud the rigor of the condemnations from our leaders. Exactly how “rogue” these actions were will no doubt be uncovered by the course of the investigation, although one of the accused American NCOs has been claiming that the mistreatment of prisoners resulted from direct orders given by shadowy civilian military contractors (less hermetically known as mercenaries.) How widespread the knowledge of these abuses reached up the official chain of command will hopefully emerge during the courts martial.
However the question must be asked, loudly and often, as to how these professional soldiers came to think that these assaults were acceptable. It is common practice to demonize an enemy before battle, as it makes the killing that will take place easier to bear psychologically. Once an enemy is captured or has surrendered however, both honor and the Geneva conventions dictate humane treatment. Given that one of the ostensible reasons for the coalition’s presence in Iraq is to fly the banner of democratic values, it should pain all of us that this vileness was allowed to emerge from the ranks of what both sides of the pond are told are the “best, most professional armies in the world.” The trouble is that while only a few “rogue” elements have seen fit to act on their disgusting, inhuman impulses there is a permissive culture towards brutalism in both armies.
I support the troops. I come from a military family, and I know first hand the sacrifices made by service personnel in return for lousy pay, keyed-up boredom, and moments of high danger. But I also bear in mind the maxim expressed by the Duke of Wellington on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo: “I do not know what our men do to the French, but they scare the hell out of me.” Fighting units and their support arms (military police, etc) have to be brutal, savage combatants. Yet, believing as I do that every human being can conceive of at least two separate lines of thought simultaneously, they also have to be professional enough to put the brakes on. The best army units apply force within a disciplined continuum.
The American and British troops serving in Iraq are under a microscope; their individual actions and inactions can have an impact on the post-war landscape of the entire region. One photograph of an Iraqi humiliated and beaten could be the trigger for the next Mohammed Atta. Nobody is perfect, but every soldier knows that the treatment of prisoners and civilians is not subject to improvisation as clear laws and rules do exist.
The problem might be that the coalition troops do not see the Iraqis as a liberated population but rather as a defeated enemy. When an army allows its troops to refer to all Arabs (enemy soldier, guerilla/terrorist, civilian, and ally alike) as “camel jockeys” and “towel heads” the dehumanization that leads to humiliation, casual hooliganism, and torture has begun. The inability to control the basest behaviors of soldiers smacks of poor leadership and an institutional failure.
I have little patience with those who are ready to draw historically dubious comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam after a scant 13 months. However, there is one aspect of that dismal Southeast Asian conflict that does seem relevant to these abuses in Iraq, and its one that has been back in the news as an aspect of the presidential campaign.
Back in 1971, John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about abuses, torture, and crimes committed by US servicemen in Vietnam. As decorated combat veterans of that conflict, Kerry and his colleagues in Vietnam Veterans Against The War were able to give eye- witness accounts of the abuses, and backed them up in repeated press interviews, including one infamous encounter on Meet the Press.
I say infamous because on April 18, 2004 on the same show, Tim Russett decided to take Kerry to task for his testimony 23 years previously. Suggesting that “a lot” of Kerry’s allegations had been discredited, Russett tried to hold the Democratic contender’s feet to the fire and cast doubt on his suitability for the Oval Office. To his discredit, Kerry vacillated and waffled rather than stand by the courageous actions of his youth.
The unpleasant and unavoidable truth, highlighted by Kerry all those years ago, is that torture and human rights abuses were both prolific and horrific in Vietnam. This has been backed up by hours and hours of testimony, memoir, and confession. Most recently, The Toledo Blade of Ohio won a Pulitzer Prize this year for its illumination of a campaign of unrelenting human rights abuses by a specific army unit over a seven-month period.
The fact that similar allegations are now emerging in Iraq suggest that people like Russett are both in the wrong and doing the world a grave disservice. By attacking the whistle blowers for their courageous stand against inhuman behavior rather than turning the spotlight on the complacency, permissiveness, and institutional brutality that leads to this torture they risk perpetuating this pattern of abuse that has damaging effects far beyond those on the immediate perpetrators and victims.
It is a damning indictment of America’s failure to learn from the disaster of Vietnam that these abuses have been taking place in Iraq. Maybe we should think twice before trying to forcibly export our brand of democracy, given that we seem fundamentally incapable of mature examination of our own weaknesses.
George W. Bush famously claimed “they hate us for our freedoms.” No Mr. President, they hate us for our arrogance, our casual xenophobia, our ignorance, and our callow refusal to examine the institutional failures that lead to the torture of prisoners.
Write to me: wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Can A Hamas Sandwich Ever be Kosher?
Most of the world's attention today has been focused on Condi Rice's Mendacity Roadshow over at the 9/11 Commission in Washington DC or the sad spectacle of US Marines fighting Iraqis a year after the "Mission Accomplished" banner was unfurled. However, interesting utterances have been coming out of the small melba toast sized patch of scorched earth known as Palestine that might indicate an opportunity for the Palestinians and Israelis to once again begin the tentative move towards a lasting peace.
Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have issued proposals to the terrorist group Hamas, suggesting that for a renunciation of violence inside Israel against civillians (and a suspension of coniving and hostility towards Arafat's Fatah movement) the militant group might be able to join a power-sharing government.
The reaction from Tel Aviv and Washington DC have been predictable. The Israelis (understandably for once) have pointed out that they aren't very keen on the idea considering that the proposal still sanctions attacks on their army and their apocalyptic fundamentalist squatters sitting on stolen land in Gaza and the West Bank. Besides (still understandable given the Sharon government but much more despicable) the Israelis feel that any unification of the Palestinians can only lessen their chances to keep the holy land's original inhabitants poor and subjugated.
The opposition to this idea by the American government comes from the current dead-or-alive, hang 'em high, cheesy western lunacy that seems to pervade Uncle Sam's foreign policy these days. Aside from a blind championing of Israel (the cowboys) over the Palestinians (the indians) that seems to be unconciously based on the USA's own treatment of indigineous people, the same gunfight at the OK corral military solution imposed on a political problem that informs the whole "War on Terror®" is the only response they have to a complex issue.
"We condemn the Palestinian Authority for cutting deals with terrorists." Will no doubt be the sound bite out of the White House.
Maybe then, Mr. Bush might want to reconsider his close relationship with Tony Blair, if this behavior is beyond the pale. After all, Blair (and his pedecessorJohn Major) brokered a deal with not one but two terrorist infrastructures (the IRA and the UFF) in Ulster; bringing them in from the ambush towards the ballot box.
How about he talk to his dad about the Reagan and Bush I adminsitration's championing of the atrocity loving, drug dealing Contras? Or the atrocity loving, drug dealing, jihadist mujahadeen in Afghanistan? About how keen these previous American leaders were to advocate amnestys and places in civil government for these former militants?
Terrorism is not a military issue; it is political and criminal. Without a defense budget or a huge standing army, the terrorist uses dogma and ideology to maintain his organization and to commit his murders and maimings. We use the language of the crime scene to report on his actions; and yet the metaphors of war, not policing, to describe our reactions. Except when we take them prisoner; then they are no longer a military enemy, deserving of Geneva Convention protections, but rather "enemy combatants" condemned to endless detention without representation or trial. In Britain, despite the fact that infantry was deployed throughout Ulster, IRA men were treated as common criminals if caught, and troops and police were even prosecuted for excessive force on occasion.
Perhaps it is easier to use the war language when you are fighting people who happen to have brown skin. Innocent civillian western victims are all huge individual losses. The civillian victims of our retalitory violence in the Third World are not, apparently. Despite the fact that terrorist training camps took up very little real estate in Afghanistan, we bombed, strafed, and shelled vast swaths of the country. We are up to our nipples in shit over in Iraq, fighting a war that allegedly ended eleven months ago, condeming thousands of Iraqis to miserable deaths in the name of their own liberation, and crippling, blinding, and killing the bewildered troops of the coalition (not just Americans: by digging past the insular US media you'll learn that British, Italian, and Spanish troops have died or been wounded. No doubt more from other nations have too, but google seems eurocentric.)
The PA-Hamas deal is indeed flawed, but not beyond repair. It is a real chance to bring the men of violence to the table (much like in Ulster) and legitimize the power of democratic ideals to change the middle east. It might even serve to weaken Al Qadea by offering an organic, home grown alternative to bin Laden's nihilism rather than an imposed western model. Dismising it out of hand with macho posturings about "fights to the death" will only worsen the problems facing Israel, Europe, and the United States. Encouraging Hamas and its ilk to lay down the AK-47 and embrace Robert's Rules of Order can only make us safer.
Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have issued proposals to the terrorist group Hamas, suggesting that for a renunciation of violence inside Israel against civillians (and a suspension of coniving and hostility towards Arafat's Fatah movement) the militant group might be able to join a power-sharing government.
The reaction from Tel Aviv and Washington DC have been predictable. The Israelis (understandably for once) have pointed out that they aren't very keen on the idea considering that the proposal still sanctions attacks on their army and their apocalyptic fundamentalist squatters sitting on stolen land in Gaza and the West Bank. Besides (still understandable given the Sharon government but much more despicable) the Israelis feel that any unification of the Palestinians can only lessen their chances to keep the holy land's original inhabitants poor and subjugated.
The opposition to this idea by the American government comes from the current dead-or-alive, hang 'em high, cheesy western lunacy that seems to pervade Uncle Sam's foreign policy these days. Aside from a blind championing of Israel (the cowboys) over the Palestinians (the indians) that seems to be unconciously based on the USA's own treatment of indigineous people, the same gunfight at the OK corral military solution imposed on a political problem that informs the whole "War on Terror®" is the only response they have to a complex issue.
"We condemn the Palestinian Authority for cutting deals with terrorists." Will no doubt be the sound bite out of the White House.
Maybe then, Mr. Bush might want to reconsider his close relationship with Tony Blair, if this behavior is beyond the pale. After all, Blair (and his pedecessorJohn Major) brokered a deal with not one but two terrorist infrastructures (the IRA and the UFF) in Ulster; bringing them in from the ambush towards the ballot box.
How about he talk to his dad about the Reagan and Bush I adminsitration's championing of the atrocity loving, drug dealing Contras? Or the atrocity loving, drug dealing, jihadist mujahadeen in Afghanistan? About how keen these previous American leaders were to advocate amnestys and places in civil government for these former militants?
Terrorism is not a military issue; it is political and criminal. Without a defense budget or a huge standing army, the terrorist uses dogma and ideology to maintain his organization and to commit his murders and maimings. We use the language of the crime scene to report on his actions; and yet the metaphors of war, not policing, to describe our reactions. Except when we take them prisoner; then they are no longer a military enemy, deserving of Geneva Convention protections, but rather "enemy combatants" condemned to endless detention without representation or trial. In Britain, despite the fact that infantry was deployed throughout Ulster, IRA men were treated as common criminals if caught, and troops and police were even prosecuted for excessive force on occasion.
Perhaps it is easier to use the war language when you are fighting people who happen to have brown skin. Innocent civillian western victims are all huge individual losses. The civillian victims of our retalitory violence in the Third World are not, apparently. Despite the fact that terrorist training camps took up very little real estate in Afghanistan, we bombed, strafed, and shelled vast swaths of the country. We are up to our nipples in shit over in Iraq, fighting a war that allegedly ended eleven months ago, condeming thousands of Iraqis to miserable deaths in the name of their own liberation, and crippling, blinding, and killing the bewildered troops of the coalition (not just Americans: by digging past the insular US media you'll learn that British, Italian, and Spanish troops have died or been wounded. No doubt more from other nations have too, but google seems eurocentric.)
The PA-Hamas deal is indeed flawed, but not beyond repair. It is a real chance to bring the men of violence to the table (much like in Ulster) and legitimize the power of democratic ideals to change the middle east. It might even serve to weaken Al Qadea by offering an organic, home grown alternative to bin Laden's nihilism rather than an imposed western model. Dismising it out of hand with macho posturings about "fights to the death" will only worsen the problems facing Israel, Europe, and the United States. Encouraging Hamas and its ilk to lay down the AK-47 and embrace Robert's Rules of Order can only make us safer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
