The latest craze these days is to come up with an Iraq withdrawal plan, preferably with bullet points. Well, budding political strategist that I am, I've written up my plan to withdraw the troops from Iraq and paved the road to the White House for any candidate who has the courage to take me up on it. Look at the footer of this page, this plan is licensed under a Creative Commons license (as if that were relevant). You, too, can adopt the Darian Plan For Withdrawal From Iraq:
- Announce immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, return of habeas corpus rights for all Americans, and a renewed commitment to the Geneva Conventions.
- Immediately begin public, high-level negotiations with Iran and Syria and ask those countries for help in Iraq. Our interests are aligned with theirs. Cease beating the war drums against Iran.
- Having thus laid the groundwork for a return to international law (you may also want to close our "secret" CIA prisons and our "extraordinary rendition" programs), go back to the U.N. and tell the truth this time. Offer to pay for whatever international U.N. troop numbers are necessary to bring some measure of order back to Iraq and withdraw American troops. One of the reasons the United States is losing the war of ideas is because we started this war under false pretenses and we've turned Iraqi life into a living hell. The U.N. does not suffer from our deserved lack of credibility.
- Broach that subject we've desperately avoided: maybe Iraq is not a viable state; maybe it needs to be broken into a Sunni, Kurdish, and Shiite state. This is an international debate and belongs on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly in addition to the Iraqi Parliament.
- Open all of the civilian contract work bidding up to international corporations. Sever the sweetheart deals that have made a mockery of the sacrifices our armed forces have made. With a transparent bidding process, other nations will have a stake in rebuilding Iraq and the American people won't have to be fleeced by the likes of Titan, C.A.C.I. and Halliburton (among others).
Always remember that
Iraq ≠ Baghdad. We have not been able to pacify the
capital of Iraq, so it's time to admit our mistake, seek outside help, and, yes, pay for it.
Labels: iran, iraq, politics, syria, U.N., war
Andrew Sullivan says Britain is humiliated, Amos at Kishkushim says Iran is humiliated, The Independent covers the spin. But in the end, I think I like Terry Jones' take the best.
Labels: britain, diplomacy, iran, politics, war
In America, we have this way of overlooking the patently obvious. What is the American public's number one concern these days? Security. More specifically, terrorism. And what country is the bogeyman du jour? Iran. But let's just consider that perception:
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with 9/11? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the Madrid attacks? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the London attacks? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the Bali attacks? No.
- Where did those attackers come from? Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt—basically Arab countries and Pakistan.
- Were any of those attackers Iranian? No.
-
Do Iranians have any reason to fear us? Consider this map:
Notice those two bright red American-invaded countries on either side of Iran. Then remember all that "axis of evil" talk. Now think back to who has once already deposed Iran's democratically elected prime minister in favor of an autocratic king who ruled until he was overthrown during the revolution of 1979 (hint:
it was us), who it was that armed Iraq in the first place (hint:
it was us), and who it was that encouraged and directly supported Saddam Hussein's war on Iran (hint:
it was us). Maybe
they're afraid of
us. And maybe they should be. Are they seeking nuclear weapons? Probably. They probably look over at their neighbor Pakistan, who has done
much more to harm American interests and realize that Pakistan is an American "ally" because it's got the bomb.
Labels: 'merica, history, iran, iraq, sham, war
This is a brilliant piece of propagandizing by omission from an AP article, "
Iranian President Derides U.S. Threats" in today's
New York Times:
"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," [undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas] Burns said Tuesday in an address to influential think-tank Gulf Research Center, based in the United Arab Emirates.
If you'll notice, the proper name of the
Persian Gulf - with the operative adjective being "Persian" - is shortened here to just "the Gulf." America, my beautiful country on the opposite side of the globe with the Atlantic Ocean on its right side and the Pacific on its left, America telling the Persians that they should not have a say over the Persian Gulf . . . well, it chafes a bit, is all.
Labels: fud, iran, sham
There's
an article in Friday's
New York Times about
Senator Jay Rockefeller's (Democrat - West Viriginia) negative response to the Bush administration's rhetorical buildup against Iran. Here are some of the highlights:
Mr. Rockefeller was biting in his criticism of how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic radicalism since the Sept. 11 attacks, saying he believed that the campaign against international terrorism was "still a mystery" to the president.
"I don't think he understands the world," Mr. Rockefeller said. "I don’t think he's particularly curious about the world. I don't think he reads like he says he does."
He added, "Every time he's read something he tells you about it, I think."
Does anybody disagree with this sentiment, any more? One of the good ways to have access to "reality" is to read about it, but since "
reality has a well-known liberal bias," perhaps it's best to avoid reading altogether. Unless it's the "good" book.
Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said in response to Senator Rockefeller's comments that Iran was taking provocative actions both inside Iraq and elsewhere, and that American allies were united in efforts to end what intelligence officials believe is a covert nuclear weapons program inside the country.
Yellowcake. Cylinders. Mobile Labs. Centrifuges. Act two.
"It has been clear for some time that Iran has been meddling in Iraq, and the Iraqis have made the concerns known to the Iranians," Mr. Johndroe said.
Let there be no mistake: we (i.e. the Bush administration)
really respect the concerns of the Iraqis and we don't like the idea that somebody (
*cough* else
*cough*) might "meddle" in that country.
He noted that the administration has said it would be willing to begin direct talks with Iran — which have not occurred since 1979 — if Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.
We stopped talking to them when they stormed our embassy and held our people hostage for 444 days. But we figure it might be time to set those differences aside . . . nah, we just busted up their consulate in Iraq. Booya!
Labels: george bush, iran, iraq, sham, war
Afshin Molavi, who is a fellow at the New American Foundation, contributes an op-ed piece in today's
New York Times, called "
Our Allies in Iran." He makes the case for easing some of our relations with Iran, in order to encourage the democratic-minded middle-class of Iranians, without ceding anything to the hardline regime. I think he's right, but I don't imagine anybody in the Bush administration would be convinced by his argument.
Speaking of the New America Foundation . . .
While I was reading about the New America Foundation, I ran into
this blog entry, by Nathan Newman, which complains about a statement made by the New America Foundation that points out the basic flaw in employer-based healthcare. Newman makes an analogy that should strike you as flawed even if you don't catch the immediate problem:
When Wal-Mart's trucks break down, no one expects the government to pay to repair them. Wal-Mart pays to fix them and the costs are included in the price of the goods they sell.
Yet moderate Democrats apparently think that when workers get sick, companies don't have the responsibility to "repair" their workers.
The problem, of course, is this:
Wal-Mart owns its trucks, but Wal-Mart does not own its employees. So while it is perfectly natural that Wal-Mart should expect nobody to care for its possessions, it simply does not follow that Wal-Mart has to pay for its workers' healthcare.
And while I'm pretending to be a right-winger . . .
(note: this has since been disabled)
In the spirit of civic awareness, I have decided that my page should serve as more than just a waste of time. So, I have changed my theme to indicate the Department of Homeland Security's Terror Advisory level at the time you load the page. If the DHS's website is unavailable, the theme will default to the "baby blue" theme I had before. However, if the DHS site is down, you should probably be more concerned about what happened to the DHS than what color my page will render. Of course, the problem could be on my end, so you might want to (perhaps) check a more reputable news source. In case you need to brush up on what the colors mean, here is the Terror Advisory
reference, or you can just look at the "terror_alert" sidebar on this page. If you want to do something similar, here is the XML file from the DHS site. It is sparse:
www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/getAdvisoryConditionLabels: conservatism, fud, iran, politics, terrorism
This article can't really be serious. Aside from the photos of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from 1979, which clearly show that he is not the man in the photos of the captors from the hostage situation in Iran immediately after the revolution, there is also the issue of the eyewitness' ability to distinguish the same man a quarter-century after the fact (by looking at photos in newspapers, no less). When you hold 52 people hostage for 444 days, you can't really sneak back into the woodwork, people know who you are. I suspect strongly that conservative and religious though he may be, and hostage-taker this man is not.
Labels: iran, mahmoud ahmadinejad
In response to an editorial in the Washington Post today, I wrote a short piece further detailing the parallels between the political situations in Iran and Pakistan. I agree with the Post's editorial, but I think the similarity is so striking that it deserves a closer look:
Most Americans either do not know, or have chosen to forget, that the seeds of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution were sown by the CIA and Britain's MI6 in 1953 when they successfully arranged a coup d'etat which removed Iran's elected prime minister, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh was seen as a threat to British and American interests because he had passed a law nationalizing Iran's oil assets. When Mossadegh was removed from office, the Shah was free to exercise complete authoritarian control over Iran until he was overthrown in 1979. The U.S. and Britain realized that it would be much easier to influence Iranian policy through one man, the Shah, than proposing policies that would be mutually beneficial to Iran and western nations would have been.
Their miscalculation, of course, was an underestimation of Iranian dissatisfaction with their appointed dictator. The government of the Shah had been tempered by an elected representative government led by Dr. Mossadegh, and without these checks, the Shah was free to rule oppressively over an Iran that had tasted freer government. By 1979 many groups were vying for the overthrow of the Shahís government. Decades of tyranny had galvanized the people, and the more radical right-wing revolutionaries eventually gained the greatest prominence in the ensuing revolution. America and Britain, in 1979, were in the awkward position of having to reject a government based on the will of the Iranian people, a people driven to a radical government entirely due to British and American policies.
Today, both the American left and right completely ignore the devastating policies, of their own government, that led to the creation of the Islamic republic of Iran. Iranís government is demonized as anti-western, but historical context is conveniently omitted from the diatribes. Even worse, American politicians are making the same mistakes their predecessors made in the '50s. Just as America and Britain supported the Shahís authoritarian rule in the decades leading up to the Iranian revolution, they are now, under the guidance of President Bush, supporting Pakistanís despot General Pervez Musharraf. Like the Shah of Iran, General Musharraf gained complete authority over his state by a coup, which disenfranchised Pakistanís representative civilian government. He is widely reviled by Pakistanis and he is rightly seen as a tyrant whose power is guaranteed by American and British policies. Like Iran's radical clerics did in the '70s, radical Pakistani religious groups are gaining power, and a revolution like Iranís is entirely conceivable.
Musharraf has occasionally paid lip service to the idea of democratizing his nation. Most recently, he had promised to resign as the Pakistani Army Chief of Staff by today. He has reneged on this promise, and he still retains control of both the "civilian" government and the military of Pakistan. Like Iran, Pakistan has a history of representative civil governance, and like Iran before it, that tradition has been suppressed by western governments. If President Bush is sincere about his oft-stated desire to spread democracy in this region, then he would do well to learn the lessons of his predecessor and threaten to withdraw American support from General Musharraf if the Pakistani dictator does not make significant progress in his promise to re-democratize his increasingly radicalized nation.
Labels: history, iran, pakistan, politics
