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
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
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
More than three years have passed since we
invaded an Arabic-speaking country, but our own newly established embassy in Iraq only has
thirty-three Arabic speakers - only
six of whom are fluent! Way to go, 'merica. Well, at least our elected representatives have
informed themselves (see
kishkushim). Oh. Wait.
Labels: arabic, iraq, military, sham, war
Unsurprisingly, everyone is scrambling to come up with an ideological backdrop against which Islamic terrorism can be explained. There's an op-ed piece on today's
New York Times which makes perfect sense to me. I was going to comment that Professor Roy states the obvious:
[I]f the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are at the core of the radicalization, why are there virtually no Afghans, Iraqis or Palestinians among the terrorists? Rather, the bombers are mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Egypt and Pakistan - or they are Western-born converts to Islam. Why would a Pakistani or a Spaniard be more angry than an Afghan about American troops in Afghanistan? It is precisely because they do not care about Afghanistan as such, but see the United States involvement there as part of a global phenomenon of cultural domination.
(nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22roy.html)
But it turns out that what's obvious to me isn't accepted by everyone. Fred Kaplan has an article on
Slate today that says pretty much the opposite of what Professor Roy's column says:
Three new studies, by very different authors taking very different tacks, reach much the same conclusion about modern terrorism: that its practitioners, especially its foot soldiers, are motivated not so much by Islamic fantasies of the caliphate's restoration and the snuffing of freedom, but rather by resistance to foreign occupation of Arab lands.
(slate.com/id/2123010)
Kaplan agrees with these studies in large part because of an examination of terrorist activity in Iraq. An Israeli researcher, Reuven Paz, who has compiled the most complete study of foreign terrorists in Iraq comes up with this conclusion:
The vast majority of Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activities prior to their arrival in Iraq.
Of course, neither Paz nor Kaplan seems to notice that there is a good logistical reason for this fact. Most suicide bombers don't survive to bomb another day. And even terrorists who are not suicide bombers don't wage multi-front wars. They are, after all, just the foot soldiers, not the commanders like bin Laden.
So while I typically agree with Fred Kaplan, I have to disagree here. It is very much
who we are that Islamic terrorists want to attack and it has less to do with
what we do than they would like us to think. And finally, it is worth pointing out again that Muslim terrorists are not squeamish at all when it comes to killing other Muslims if they disagree with their interpretation of their religion. So perhaps it's not even who we are so much as who we are not (like-minded Muslim fantasists).
Labels: afghanistan, iraq, terrorism, war
Note: This post originally appeared on a now-defunct site on May 11, 2004.
I unapologetically supported the idea of going to war in Iraq. I never really believed in this whole WMD idea, but I thought the war was just on humanitarian grounds. From the beginning, I wished the UN had supported taking action against Saddam Hussein's regime; but despite their inaction, I still agreed with the Bush Administration's stance of unilateral force if necessary. In fact, I still hold Russia, France, and Germany indirectly responsible for much of the botched operation that has since ensued because it was clear from the start that their objections were based on political and cynical motivations rather than legitimate ones. I always had misgivings about the Bush Administration's ability to conduct this war properly; after all, Afghanistan was still left unfinished, and the timing of the Iraq war did seem somewhat questionable. But I was willing to let it slide: I thought we had a military that could handle a war on two fronts.
As it turns out, our military cannot handle the war adequately on either front. My cautious trust in the Administration was misplaced. I always had misgivings about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but I thought that Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell were reasonable men. Boy, was I wrong about Wolfowitz. If I've learned one thing from this affair, it's this: neo-conservatives are no more enlightened about the "real world" than anybody else. If anything, they seem to live in a fantasy world where America's superpower status is somehow magically omnipotent and needs not answer to anybody, including the American populace.
The war in Iraq could have been a just war. I thought I was seeing through rhetoric on both sides. On the left, the "no blood for oil" peaceniks just seemed too cynical to be right. On the right, the WMD threat did not seem credible. And so, I arrived at my conclusion based on moral reasoning: any dictator we remove is a good thing. If the UN wasn't going to live up to its role as the world's governing body, maybe America could fill some of the gap.
America has not filled this gap. Donald Rumsfeld has openly admitted that the tortures we have so far seen are only the tip of the iceberg. As far as the larger war effort, Rumsfeld's Pentagon has been woefully (perhaps criminally) unprepared for the occupation that was certain to follow an invasion. Colin Powell's strategy of overwhelming force, though more expensive, would have been the only realistic way to succeed in this war. I was amazed that Rumsfeld's invasion-on-the-cheap policy won the support of the White House. As a result of that policy, and other failings, this Administration has seriously damaged, if not destroyed, any chance of building a friendly, democratic Iraq.
If I'd known then what I know now, I never would have supported this war. I sorely overestimated the leadership ability of this Administration. Like many liberals, I hoped for an internal coup which would increase Colin Powell's influence. But that did not happen. And I will be the first to admit that I was taken in by the neo-conservatives. But I was wrong on nearly every front.
Labels: iraq, politics, sham, war
