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

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Random thoughts again

Innocence of Muslims controversy

Egypt indicts 8 in movie flap

Good backgrounder on the movie

It seems the new Egyptian government wants to pander to the mob. Ok, I can understand that … even if pandering to the mob usually is wrong.

Granted, the movie “Innocence of Muslims” is a piece of trash and insulting to almost anyone with active brain cells, and it almost a criminal assault on one’s intellect, it does not rise to the level of a capital offense. Not in reality, however, in Egypt, people who face such charges are indeed facing a possible death sentence.

This is how so stupid, and I use that word advisedly, in the Muslim world – especially in the Muslim Arab countries – things have become. We Americans wonder what is with these people? Well, folks, there are two things going down here.

1. Is third parties are stirring the pot to increase their personal power and influence.

2. Some people, some cultures, some social systems, just have no tolerance for differences opinion. They have no tolerance for satire or parody. In short, they have not sense of tolerance at all.

I don’t say that because I think these people are evil or essentially bad people. No, in their world, what they think and do is entirely correct and proper. Unfortunately, from many of us in the West, it is totally incorrect and improper. Ironically, many people from this end of the world who applaud or approve the actions like these of the Egyptian government probably fail to realize that with their views, they probably would be among the first to go to the guillotine.

Prosecute the promoters

Unfortunately, we have those in the U.S. who fail to see the point that freedom does not mean they or anybody else gets to trump up charges to suppress views, however fallacious, however wrong, however bad they may seem. The people who hold those views, in this case, are the victims and not the criminals.

A good argument against prosecution

 

Rumors of war

Israel v. Iran

Azerbaijan v. Armenia (or Russia v. Turkey)

China v. Japan

China v. its neighbors in the South China Sea

Syria v. Syria

I guess if you look at it, it really is a pretty bleak world out there. Whether it is the ongoing war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) or the threatened or ongoing conflicts in the Middle East or the ones threatening in Central Asia or with Iran versus whomever, or the Chinese versus whomever, it seems that the news is full of warnings and rumblings that would lead some people to think war is right around the corner. Well, maybe I am an optimist, but I don’t think so.

Yes, the low intensity (to the rest of us) conflict in Syria will continue as will the ethnic clashes elsewhere between Shia and Sunni, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, Christian and Animists, Catholics and Protestants (although that has cooled down a log in recent years).

I know the Israeli-Palestinian/Iran confrontation has my friend out west up in arms. He seems to think that the next two weeks will see Israel attack Iran, or so he told me about a week ago. I told him that it could happen but I wasn’t of the opinion that it was all that likely.

Just like in the East or South China Seas, some sort of naval clash could happen at any time, but I am doubtful that it would degenerate into a full-blown war.

Why am I so optimistic: Because at the moment, none of the involved parties really have all that to gain by sparking large scale armed conflicts. Granted, I am not in the heads of any of the leaders anywhere but most leaders are not suicidal and unless you have a much better than even chance of prevailing in whatever level of combat you are willing to gamble will result from your initial move, then you aren’t about to make that initial move.

Of course, unfortunately, that does not factor in the individuals on the ground (or sea) at the point of conflict who just might make those stupid decisions that usually trigger a major conflict.

Still, before we head for the bunkers, I think we all should just take a deep breath and consider that war often is just a rumor and we can wait to verify it before jumping off any cliffs.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

To my Muslim readers: Why the violence?

Short history of Muslim intolerance
Obama says US has respect for people of all faiths
And then again, maybe not – No one murdered though (NSFW or kids)

I would hope that someone of the Islamic faith would explain to me the reason for the violence – and resultant carnage – every time some obscure person or entity in the “West” does something that criticizes or portrays the Islamic faith in a less than favorable light. Oh, I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from some Muslims.
You see, I find it odd that people launch themselves into the streets and attack people, places or things based on what to them is merely a rumor. How many people out there demonstrating and fighting with riot police really have viewed the YouTube videos “Innocence of a Muslim” or its short version trailer? I would hazard a guess, that even with all the publicity, it remains a relatively small number, particularly in countries where internet access is nowhere near as prevalent as it is, let say, in the United States.
You look at the list of incidents over the past decade or so (see first link) and you wonder what really is going on. It really isn’t over the books, films, cartoons, or whatever; it is over something else – local control.
It is, simply put, an effort by local political and religious leaders to incite and then divert the passions of the people they are trying to control away from themselves. Tired people who are angry are less likely to do violence to their leaders if they have some “foreign” devil to blame for their troubles instead of the “known” devils who are ruling them.
This is not new. It is as old as mankind. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, leaders of all shapes, sizes and descriptions always try to find a devil of some type to get the people they want to support them to focus their energy (actually anger) on.
You see, we humans are perpetually angry. We always find someone or something to be angry about. If you don’t agree, stop and think about all the things that aggravated, irritated and angered you just today. It probably be everything from that stupid alarm clock that woke you this morning, to the idiot driving that car that you didn’t like or some crazy politician making a promise you know he (or she) won’t even try to keep (much less have any realistic chance of keeping in today’s world).
That much anger needs to be channeled. It is dangerous but it can be useful. You want to cause fear and to influence the people you want to control as well as to do harm to people who disagree with you. Well, let’s whip up your friendly neighborhood mob and just march them out to do something outrageous … ok, we won’t tell them it is stupid, idiotic and outrageous, we will just get them mad enough to get their emotions to overtake their normal rational selves.
How many times have you done something in a fit of anger or pique that in retrospect that you have asked yourself “WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING?” Don’t you worry, we all do it, so you are not alone.
Our president does it at almost every campaign stop when he tries to whip up anger against those evil rich people who don’t pay their fair share of taxes or those evil corporations who are out to steal you blind. Hey, the Republicans are just as bad, saying the president is out to ruin the country, that he really hates the country but he just won’t tell you that. It all is to strike fear into your heart and get you to act in the way that they want you to do.
You see, these political and religious leaders often don’t want you to think for yourself. They don’t want you to look at the options they are offering and decide for yourself if those options really are in your own best interest. Nope, can’t give people that choice, you see, because they will screw things up by not deciding what is in their own best interest … even if they think it is and can tell you why.
So, I look at the rioting and chaos around the world and I wonder “How can those people really think that their actions really are in their own best interest?”
Well, I would say “I haven’t a clue.” But I do. People who want power know the best way to control people is to get them emotional enough to overcome reason. Then there always are the “looters” (those people who want something for nothing) who take advantage of the confusion and chaos to do things that will gratify themselves for the time being.
However, you see this in the way soldiers are indoctrinated and the way “true believers” are indoctrinated. It is all an effort to get the individual to surrender themselves to things that really are alien to themselves (even if sometimes necessary) and get them to overcome their fears and do things that really are not in the individual’s best interest.
For example, running into a hail of bullets really is not in the best interest of an individual soldier, but sometimes it has to be done in order to “advance” the cause, whether it is win the war or just save the life of your buddy.
So, if Islam is such a peaceful religion, and if Islam does not see itself “at war” with other religions (particularly Christianity and Judaism, and sometimes Sunnis versus Shiites), then why the violence?
It is interesting that the web site The Onion, which takes a satirical and irreverent view of the world all the time, can post a rather obscene cartoon, yet no one has been killed over the cartoon (at least yet – I think because no one can figure out a target). I wonder why this is.
I, like most other people in the United States, and much of the “West” merely shake our heads and go “what idiots” and go on with what we are doing. Why does that seem so impossible for so many Muslims in so many countries around the world?

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Blame America first

Iraq helps Iran skirt sanctions

Iran calls Israel an insult

Syrian airstrikes continue

China warns Japan over islands

North Korea threatens US

Politically incorrect guide to U.S. interests

I am always fascinated by those who blame the United States for all the woes in the world … as if the Americans had that much power. I am sorry, but superpower or not, the U.S. never has been in “control” of anything outside the U.S., much less control of events inside its own borders.

There are those who look at the conflicts around the world and say “Well, what are you going to do about it America?”

Whether it is the civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Sudan or Congo; or threatening conflicts between Japan and China, or the Chinese and Filipinos, or the Chinese and the Vietnamese, or the Indians and the Pakistanis or the Israelis versus Iran … or even the U.S. versus Iran, do you really think these conflicts are being triggered by remote control? Do you really believe that there is some nefarious group that is manipulating all these conflicts? Give me a break. The answer is much simpler than that: Nobody is in “control” or you can say everybody is in control. In each of these conflicts, there really is very little the U.S. – or you or me, for that matter – can do to influence their resolutions.

The problem is, as the problem has been throughout history, is that there are individuals – good, bad or indifferent – in each one of the above countries who is making guesses about what they can or cannot do and which would maybe result in an outcome that is to their benefit and the benefit of their country. Those guesses probably not all the educated, or educated so much that they still don’t know what they are doing.

In Syria, there are so many players playing so many angles who knows what will happen. I sure don’t, but I can tell you this: It will be a bloody mess, literally and figuratively.

In Iraq, despite eight years there and a significant contingent of American “advisors”, the Americans are not calling the shots and nobody is being “handled.” The Iraqis and their leadership are going to play the game to suit their own interests and not necessarily the country’s best interests.

In Sudan and Congo, the same metric is going down but with different players and, sorry folks, but the U.S. not only won’t, but can’t do anything to affect it.

The events in the South and East China Seas? You think Beijing or Tokyo or Manila or Jakarta or Hanoi really are going to jump when the U.S. says: “Ok, boys, everybody back in their corners.” Do think the North Koreans are going to stop blowing smoke about “sacred wars” if the U.S. would just sit down and talk to them like they were rational adults?

Like the U.S. is going to have a whole lot of influence over Pakistan and be able to tell it and its neighbor to stop rattling each other’s cage.

And Israel and Iran? Why does the Iranian leadership have to keep rattling their sabers? It just makes the Israelis rattle theirs. A friend of mine said everything would be all right if the Israelis would just settle their long-term problems with the Palestinians. Hello? What planet is he on? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought Bill Clinton came within inches of that goal in 2000, but Yasser Arafat walked out at the last minute. I am sorry, but compromise sometimes means accepting a 95 percent solution rather than a 100 percent solution.

As for the Israelis, I don’t like a lot of their policies, especially the settlement policies, but you know, I can halfway understand them. Even then, they gave up all the settlements in Gaza in a bid to trade land for peace and a fat lot that got them.

I know there are those who blame the Israelis for all the conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, but I think that is a red herring. It would seem, at least for Gaza, that Egypt has had as big a role, if not bigger role in what has happened in Gaza. You do know Egypt ruled Gaza for almost 20 years and still has a border with Gaza, with their own border guards on it. I suppose, if they had wanted, they could have flooded Gaza with humanitarian aid at any time over the last 60 years … but they didn’t and they probably won’t … at least not with any aid that would create a self-sustaining, functional economy. Same goes for Jordan with the West Bank.

Still, one has to remember - despite the announcements by the Iranians and others in the Muslim world - that the Holocaust DID happen. Six million European Jews and about four million others were systematically murdered by the German Nazis. A good chunk of the Israelis are descendants of the survivors and they have decided never again.

You see, no one took Mister Hitler seriously when he wrote about and said what he planned to do. The Israelis are not about to make the same mistake twice. When you have somebody saying they want to see you eradicated because you are an insult to the world and others say they just want to wipe your nation off the map, then people with the Israelis’ background tend to take them at their word. Preemptive strikes usually work better than second strikes, basically because you often can take out much of the other side’s abilities to do any damage.

If you think the U.S. is about to be able to call the shots for the Israelis, then you are sadly mistaken. Yes, the U.S. is their bosom buddy and has helped them for years, but in the end, the Israelis are going to do what they think is in the best interest of their own survival (with the minimum of acceptable losses and casualties on their side).

Granted, the Iranians (one really should call them Persians to understand the length of their history) should be proud of their heritage, but they also should understand that in the 21st century, the empires of centuries and millennia ago are not about to be resurrected. Unfortunately, the ayatollahs and IRGC never got the meme.

The whole thing points to the probable future that it is going to get awfully violent around the world, whether it is Latin America, Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Eurasia. And don’t think North America or Europe is immune, because they are not.

In the United States we have seen what appears to be an uptick in political violence. It almost makes one dread what will happen this fall.

Whatever happens, please try to remember: The Americans are not in control. The multinational corporations are not in control. The Zionist Conspiracy is not in control.

NO ONE person, entity, group or thing is in control. And with all those actors and factors, mistakes are going to be made and my bet is that things are going to get really, really ugly.

Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but the old saying is “if you want peace, prepare for war” and maybe you will get lucky.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

National interests

America and the ungrateful

If one wants learn a lesson from history, then reading the above article should be on your reading list.

Synopsis: When the U.S. gets involved in a conflict, regardless of intentions, efforts, justification, it will not win. It will own the conflict and the parties in it will cease to own their own roles. Everything bad that happens inside the country involved that is bad is the fault of the Americans, and no credit is given to the Americans for any good. In addition, there is anger at the Americans because they did not automatically, magically and instantly solve all the problems that besiege a country.

If you review the history basically since World War II, you will find that is the case. It is sad, in a way, but then truth always is the first casualty in wars, civil or uncivil, and to quote Winston Churchill: It must be protected and guarded by a phalanx of lies.

Currently, there is a civil war going on in Syria. We know that because the International Committee of the Red Cross has decreed it. There also is a civil war still going in Iraq. Now, the U.S. does not “own” the civil war in Syria (even though our president has decided to aid one side against the other) and despite what some people will try to tell you, it bears no responsibility for the civil war in Iraq. In both cases, it is the people in those ravaged countries who are choosing to use violence to resolve their problems.

In Syria, a basically oppressive minority regime seeks to retain power and, so far, has retained the loyalty of considerable portions of the nation’s military. It doesn’t matter what the world thinks. It doesn’t matter what people think the U.S. or the U.N. should or should not do. The result will, in the end, be a verification of Chairman Mao’s axiom: All power flowers out the barrel of a gun. We will see this in Syria. We will see it in Iraq. We will see it in Iran … and when the day is done, we will see it in Afghanistan.

The problem for the Americans is that they live in a world that no longer is comfortable with this maxim. We want to believe that force is not the ultimate decider in all conflicts. Bloodied by more than three-quarters of devastating warfare, the Europeans are hoping on hope that their experiment with the European Union will break this truth. Watching what is happening in Europe today, the likelihood of that seems to be receding. Maybe the Europeans will make it work, but history is not on their side.

In the Middle East, new reports point to the Iranians building nuclear weapons.Memri.org report 

Again, is this a problem for the Americans? What should the Americans do?

I point to the simple fact that the Americans do not have any magic wands. We can’t solve anything anywhere unless the people on the ground are willing to help solve it themselves. We should have learned, that even though we may be entirely justified, that we might be doing it with all the best of intentions, the unreal expectations of other nations will neither thank, nor probably help, the Americans.

It is something you need to think about.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Amen!

Presidents, policies - foreign and domestic - and elections

 

The author of the article linked above has a really good grasp of reality when it comes to the powers of the presidency, to which I add my hearty: Amen! Definitely read the article, it really is good.

You see, contrary to a lot of people’s opinions, the American president ain’t all that powerful. That is malice by design by the people who created this republic 225 years ago.

The so-called “founding fathers” had a really strong dislike for a strong executive authority, which in that time normally was wielded by a monarch of some variety. So, the president was not given all that much authority to do anything, without the advice and consent of Congress, the Supreme Court and the states. Despite the passage of time, the president still finds himself (so far, just hims) very limited in what he actually can accomplish. I think that President Obama probably is getting around to understanding that lesson, but unfortunately, a lot of Americans and very few non-Americans get it.

No matter who wins in November, whoever is sworn in on January 20, 2013, they will find themselves in the same bind.

In addition, as the author pointed out, no matter how much the president wants to control things, he ain’t in control. No one is. That to me is the salient point of the article. People, in their hubris, think we can control events. Well, I have news for you, if you haven’t figured it out already: We don’t, we can’t and we never will.

George W. Bush opposed nation-building and that is just what trapped his administration in Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama was going to step back and let other nations help carry the load, and found out that everybody still looks to the Americans to take the lead.

Whether it is trying to control the weather or stop climate change, or bring global peace to all mankind, or ensure that no one goes hungry or without medical care: It is not going to happen. That may sound like a pretty ugly assessment, but it is facing reality.

The best we all can do is to try to cope with whatever contingencies we are faced with. Rarely will they be the ones we chose and often they will be seemingly overwhelming … and sometimes they might well be. But we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that somehow, someone, somewhere will be able to bring this chaos we see around us under control. It is not going to happen.

Remember the ancient curse – “May you live in interesting times” - well, it may come as a revelation to you, but all times are interesting times.

I don’t have a crystal ball, nor am I clairvoyant, but I can tell you all: BUCKLE UP, we are in for a wild ride.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Civil Wars

Reference story: IROC declares Syria a civil war

The International Committee of the Red Cross has declared that the conflict in Syria is a “Civil War”, but what does this mean. Wars aren’t civil, they are highly uncivil.

Now that means very little to the Syrians right now, the fighting will go on until the Assad regime is ousted or the rebellion is crushed.

But to the rest of the world it now means that a different set of rules governing warfare can now be applied, probably retroactively. You see, under the international “laws of war” certain things can be done in combat and certain things cannot. Now, what can or cannot be done is governed by the type of conflict. If it is merely a riot or a terrorist attack, a certain set of things are considered the appropriate response. If it is an insurrection, then another set applies. If it is a civil war, a third set applies and if it is a state vs. state declared war yet another set of rules apply. And if it is an undeclared war, or some military action ordered by the UN, then probably another set applies depending who is trying to define the rules.

Basically, the rules are meant to salve the consciences of people who are not in the line of fire, because the people in the line of fire will tell you the rules don’t apply and never have and never will. You do whatever it takes to survive and win and let God and the politicians sort it out afterwards.

Most people don’t understand that. They think that combat can be fought like a joust or a prize fight with the Marquis of Queensbury rules … but that is not reality and in the real world is liable to get a lot of people killed unnecessarily. Still, if you violate the rules in today’s world, at least in certain countries, you can expect to be hauled up on whatever charges those who want to bring them bring and in whatever venue they want to bring it. Note to some of these people: Sorry but the US Constitution really doesn’t apply anywhere but in US territory. I know that is a disappointment, but it is the truth.

For example: One standard applies to the US forces, no matter where they go, and that standard, unfortunately rarely applies to the people they are fighting. If the Americans used IEDs or even mines on civilian roads, something serious disciplinary-wise is going to happen to the soldier(s) responsible if they are caught. Americans are not supposed to fight that way. Not that it isn’t an effective tactic; but it is not the way Americans are supposed to behave.

Now if the “bad guys” do summary executions or other punishments on civilians, use IEDs or suicide bombers who the flip cares. If the Americans do it, well here comes the mob to hang them. I am not saying that the Americans shouldn’t be disciplined, but for heaven’s sake that is more for discipline and control than it is because it is against some arbitrary rule. However, it gets more press over here than the multitude of sins committed by our asymmetrical enemies, who rarely, if ever seem to publicly punish their troops for shooting villagers, blowing up civilians and destroying people and property.

So, as far as Syria goes now, the wise folk in Europe sitting back in their ivy-covered halls of the International Criminal Court can feel good about doing really nothing to stop the obscenity that is what is going on in Syria.

Nope, no matter who wins, there will be some bureaucrats, jurists and lawyers in The Hague lining up to prosecute whomever they don’t like for possible war crimes.

Well, I have a message for these people: War is a crime.

No, war is not a crime, nor is it moral. It IS amoral. Moral and immoral things can be done during wars, but by and large war is simply amoral. In reality, it simply is the slaughter of large numbers of people, combatants, non-combatants, civilians and illegal combatants on a large scale, usually on a mass industrial scale using some pretty horrific ways to die.

While wars will have to be fought, at least by those who wish to be free of oppression, the most moral thing that can be done in war is to use, as Pappy told me about getting into a fight, any and all means necessary to bring it to an end. That is the important thing; to get it over as quickly as possible and hopefully with as little blood split (on your side) as possible.

And in war, one must remember that the battle isn’t over until some poor slug of an infantryman is standing over the enemy with his bayonet-tipped rifle pointed at the enemy and saying in no uncertain terms: The battle is over now, you understand.

Unfortunately, Mister Rumsfeld, Mister Cheney and Mister Bush didn’t listen to people like General Shinseki when they told them that and hence here we are still in Afghanistan and spent eight years in Iraq.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Blame game?

http://geoimpulse.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-iraq-disintegrating.html?showComment=1334933795169#c7736188547415859602

I have an old high school acquaintance who I have relatively recently (via facebook) have renewed some of the debates with which we enlivened one of our classes our senior year. Debating with him was such fun, even if he had difficulty defending his progressive opinions back then. Come to think of it, he still does, in my humble opinion.

His current jag is that the war in Iraq was a failure and Bush was wrong and so it all was a waste … to the point that a) we should have left Saddam in power and b) the Iranians now are going to control Iraq (as well as Syria and Lebanon, I suppose). Well, with all due respect to the Don, once again I think he is wrong.

First, what were the reasons we and about 40 other nations went into Iraq in 2003 to enforce a host of U.N. resolutions?

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Partly … and yes, despite the conventional wisdom of today: a) the Iraqis did have some WMDs, did have the capability of producing more and did have plans to produce more, if and when the then-in-force sanctions regimen collapsed and was no longer in effect and b) that Saddam’s regime already had demonstrated against the Iranians in the 1980-1988 war that it was willing to use them against external enemies and against the Kurds and the Shi’a that it was willing to use such weapons against internal enemies as well.

The fact that he was a genocidal tyrant who was killing thousands of his people annually as well as torturing thousand upon thousands more.

The fact that he was blatant violation of something like 19 U.N. Security Council resolutions, many of which authorized the use of force to compel compliance.

The fact that he was fostering terrorist actions against not only Israel but other “enemies” (including the United States), including but not limited to training, financing and giving the families of anti-Semitic homicide bombers $25,000 USD if they bomber was successful.

It already was costing the US (and other countries involved, including the Brits), billions of bucks to maintain the U.N.-ordered “No Fly” zones over northern and southern Iraq to protect the indigenous people there (both basically unrepresented in Bathist regime) from military reprisals against them.

In addition, the Coalition had moved thousands of troops, billions of dollars worth of military supplies into the deserts of Kuwait and to a lesser extent eastern Turkey, in an effort to convince the Saddam regime that cooperating with the U.N. mandated inspections for weapons of mass destruction was in its best interest. An effort that was only marginally successful, as the U.N. inspectors complained that the Iraqis were not be cooperative, and were, in fact, being disingenuous.

All those are well documented reasons and really can’t be debated, unless you want just to deny reality.

Still, one has to be a realist and point out that however good the reasons 40-plus nations (for whatever reason you want to attribute) felt compelled to be involved, while the initial operation was a resounding success from a purely military point of view, its implementation and the subsequent efforts to help the Iraqis form a more perfect union definitely screwed the pooch as they say.

First, let me say that Gen. Shinseki was right … and Don Rumsfeld was wrong.  Let me say that the Bush Administration (including POTUS and VPOTUS) made a host of atrocious decisions and assumptions that merely illustrated the American propensity to be extremely ignorant of things non-American.

But let me point out that one cannot just use the American presence as a scapegoat for what has happened over the last 10 years in Iraq. It is not from lack of effort by the Americans that bombs still are going off in Iraq and that much of Iraq’s infrastructure remains damaged. No, most (a vast majority and now all) of that is the result of Iraqi v. Iraqi violence and depredations.

It is, as it always has, been the choice of the Iraqis themselves to choose violence over coexistence and compromise.

Now, as for the point that the U.S. has handed Iraq to the suzerainty of Tehran: Ain’t happening, and ain’t gonna happen.

Why do I say that? How about a little reality check here:

First, Iraq is Arab and Kurdish; Iran is Persian and Kurdish (but dominated by the Persians). There is a reason why that stretch of water between the Arabian peninsula and the coast of Southwest Asia has two names, depending on which side you are on – The Arabian Gulf or the Persian Gulf.

Simply put, Arabs and Persians do not get along and haven’t for about 3,000 years. There is a very, very long history of conflict and conquest here in cultures that have very long memories. So, to expect Baghdad just to march in step with Tehran is to ignore reality.

Secondly, not only is their the Shi’a-Sunni divide (which is another source of conflict that stretches back about 1,700 years) but there is a Shi’a-Shi’a divide between the ayatollahs in Qum and the ayatollahs in Karbala. Needless to say that does not bode all that well for Iranian dominance there.

What is happening in Iraq today is little different that what we saw happen in North Ireland for 20-plus years, Lebanon for at least as long, or Bosnia or Kosovo, or Somalia, or Sudan/Dafur, or Uganda, or Namibia, or host of other places that could be named. It is a civil war between two ethnic/religious groups vying for political power and to dominate the economic pie.

Rather than share either, both sides continue to use whatever means possible to advance their own agenda.

Question: Is that that fault of the Americans? Hell, no. Do the Americans necessarily a responsibility to try to intervene? Well, we tried that with mixed results in various places, but in the end, the responsibility for whatever violence and chaos an area maybe enduring, whether it Afghanistan or Iraq or the Philippines or Sri Lanka or Nigeria or Norway, really is the responsibility of the people who live there. They have to make the decision whether it is better to live under a rule of law where they are essentially equal before the law or to live under some other system.

So, to fault the Americans for failing to create more perfect unions in Iraq and Afghanistan is to ignore reality. The Iraqis and the Afghans are choosing their own fates.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Random Thoughts 17

Revisiting History

Was the Iraq War necessary? Given the context of the time, it probably was.

Was the Iraq War executed well? Obviously not, or the U.S. would not still have so many troops there.

Why was the Iraq War necessary?

To answer this question we have to slip back in time and review the complex set of circumstances that led up to the invasion.

First, what was it about the regime of Saddam Hussein that made U.S. leaders think it was time for him to leave the world scene?

Well, Saddam was a so-so educated megalomaniac who pictured himself as the savior of the Arab world.

The Arab world at this point in its history is nearing its nadir. Gone are the fabulous centers of learning of 700 to 1,000 years ago. Gone are the great thinkers of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. In their place, like a society caught in a time warp, is a cluster of nations that have fallen behind socially and economically, surpassed by the civilization that grew out of the Hellenic traditions and blossomed across Europe. It was the Europeans who underwent a religious Reformation and philosophical period of Enlightenment that leading to a Renaissance that developed into the Industrial Revolution, which literally changed the world and man’s relationship to it.

To the Arab world, to see all this progress and to not be its leader, much less not even to participate in it, not participate in it, much less be its leader, is and was a crushing humiliation. And in the Arab culture, as with most of the non-Occidental societies, humiliation is the worst that can happen to an individual, a village, a tribe, or a nation.

So, here the United States was presented with a megalomaniac, who embodiesd the Arab feeling of humiliation and had , with delusions of grandeur that under his aegis he will be the new Saladin to rule the known world, or at least the Middle East. (Granted that Saladin was a Kurd, but he was the Islamic leader that most modern Middle Eastern Islamic leaders want to emulate – his was the time of the great libraries and the great intellectuals and philosophers). This dictator’s country also had the technical capability to create weapons of mass destructions. He already had developed and actually used various chemical weapons. He had been playing around with various biological weapons, but probably was a tad short of the research needed to weaponize them. And then there were the nuclear weapons. Back in 1990, he got awfully close to making one, but the first Persian Gulf War knocked his plans a kilter.

However, by the end of 2002, he had pretty circumvented most the sanctions for his and his sons’ own personal benefit. And the whole sanctions regime would probably implode and collapse within the next 12 months. Such was the greed of people wanting something that Iraq could give them: money or oil. So, by 2003, we had this idiot just champing at the bit to have the sanctions imposed withdrawn that were to keeping him from developing these weapons on a mass scale. If only the United Nations and its pesky inspectors would go away and drop the Security Council demands that he pledge to be a good boy, and not go building WMDs, and definitely stop using any of his weapons against his neighbors.

The choice then became whether the U.S. would allow the sanctions regime to collapse and the Iraq situation revert to status quo ante the Persian Gulf War. Well, the U.S. still harbored some hopes that the U.N. could become a viable arbiter for the peaceful resolution of the world’s problems. Only, as with all behavior problems, its efforts to change them have to be backed by a credible “or else” option.

For 12 years, a U.S.-led coalition had been giving the “or else” to U.N.’s ultimata to change credibility by flying and responding to attacks and provocations over areas of sky in Iraq that the U.N. had decided were areas that Iraq aircraft were not allowed to fly. These flights were part of an effort to protect not only the inhabitants of those regions from Iraqi military air attacks but also to keep the Iraqi military from threatening its northern and southern neighbors. These flights by American, British, and, for awhile, French warplanes were flying under the U.N. flag to enforce not only the ceasefire resolution at the end of the first Gulf War, but also to protect minorities in Iraqi who were being brutally suppressed by Hussein’s goons.

The atrocities committed by Hussein, his sons, and their henchmen on their own people have been well documented over the last five years and the related deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of those deaths occurred annually during the Butcher of Baghdad’s nearly 30-year reign.

However, maintaining these forces that essentially are flying potential combat missions on a daily basis was not a cheap proposition and it was the U.S. who bore the lion’s share of the financial burden. It especially was not those people who were its primary benefactors.

This, of course, is where the ugly and evil word “oil” enters the equation.

Unfortunately for the world, the largest deposits of petroleum seem to lie beneath the sands of Arabia and the old Persian and Mesopotamian homelands. Yes, there are substantial deposits in the North Sea, the South China Sea, in Siberia and the nations of the Caspian Sea, in Africa, in North and South America, but the sweetest oil seems to come from the area surrounding the Arabian Gulf. It is the most accessible, because there is not much to disturb but except a few itinerant tribesmen passing through with their camels and their tents. There are no gleaming metropolises here, nor any hubs of great industry churning out products that raise the standard of living not only for the rich but for the common man as well. Not much in the way of people or development, just a lot of sand.

Unfortunately, as the world progresses from the industrial age to the information age and the 21st Century, much of what powers those the world economies is fueled by gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel. Some economies are more dependent on oil from this particular region than others. Most of Europe becomes dependent on Middle East crude, as do the Tigers of Asia, to which now can be added China and India. As the world continues to develop, its economies become increasingly intertwined and the supply of oil becomes increasingly inadequate.

Any threat to the smooth and peaceful extraction of oil is going to be deemed a life-threatening event to any nation whose economic umbilical is tied to it.

As in the Cold War, Europe, Japan, and other nations look expectantly to the United States, which came out of the Second World War relatively unscathed from the scars of that horrific conflict and with its seemingly huge economic power that seems to be the engine that drives the world economy intact, to shoulder – with its parallel huge military power – the burdens of being the protector of the peace and the protector of the smooth flow of this commodity to the rest of the world.

Only Hussein tended to make things jump off the track.

First, he invaded Iran and after eight years of a bloody stalemate, decided that wasn’t such a good idea after all. Yes, the U.S. and other Arab nations favored the Iraqis in this dispute, mainly because Iran, ruled by the mullahs and ayatollahs, had become a theocratic nightmare that felt the U.S. was the Great Satan and should be destroyed. Besides, there was the minor humiliation of Iran violating years of diplomatic tradition and seizing the American Embassy and holding its occupants as hostages. (Note: This technically is an act of war, but the U.S. ignored that little part of international law.)

We won’t go through the disastrous and muddled attempt to rescue the hostages that so mesmerized the Americans’ attention for the 444 days of their captivity. The U.S. was looking for a little pay back, and so what if Saddam was an evil person, he was fighting the right enemy. In that respect, sort of, it was similar to the U.S.’s alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union in World War II. Stalin may have been a totally reprehensible person and despot, but he was fighting the right enemy and it was better let him use his millions to grind down the Nazi war machine than to have young Americans pay that price.

It is the old credo: that the enemy of my enemy is my friend – at least for the moment.

So, not only did Saddam’s megalomania pose a threat his neighbors in the Gulf, all of whom maintained tiny militaries in comparison to the Iraqis (except for Iran, Syria and Turkey) and looked for protection under the American umbrella, but also his religion seemed to compel him to want to wipe out Jews - no matter where they are found. Now after Hitler’s nearly successful attempt to wipe out European Jewry, the Europeans – who have never been partial to the Jews because they were the enablers of European hypocrisy for almost two millennia – agreed to a plan to settle the remainder of the survivors in their ancient homeland in Palestine. Even though the Jews have been in Palestine for at least three millennia, the Arabs – who themselves are relative newcomers to area – were upset with the Europeans pawning off their Jews in what the Arabs perceive as “their” territory. However, the nation of Israel was formed, however, and the Arabs have spent the better part of the last 60 years thinking of ways to destroy Israel and push all of the Jews into the Mediterranean., where presumably they will all drown.

Unfortunately, for the Arabs, the United States – partly because it has the largest number population of Jews in the world living in it and partly because we really believe that the Jews should have some place they can safely call home, without being the local scapegoats for everything and occasionally having murderous riots launched to beat up on them – decided that it would be the big brother protector of this small nation of less than four millions. The Americans are just not going to sit by and watch another Holocaust. ... We did that once and it left us still kicking ourselves for letting it happen the first time. Besides, in many ways the Israelis are like us and, unlike most of their neighbors, at least their government is a functioning (or is that disfunctioning, it is hard to tell some times) democracy, unlike most of its neighbors.

But Hussein, mostly for his own domestic consumption (known as creating an outside devil – something we in the West are not immune to doing) but also for his own aggrandizement thinks thought it would really go a long way to wipe out the humiliation the Arabs have suffered over the years (especially in the four wars where the Israelis basically kicked butt on them) if he could figure out a way to wipe out the Israelis.

Well, the first thing he did, after the Iraqis and other Arab nations had their collective butt handed to them by the Israelis in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, was to go for the asymmetrical option and funds Palestinian groups who are were taking the fight daily to the Israelis in low intensity combat (suicide bombers, random rocket and mortar attacks, kidnappings and assassinations, sniper attacks and drive-by shootings). Lurking in his mind, however, was a plan to use that the ultimate weapon those dastardly Americans invented. Even if he died in the process, he would go down in history as a great Muslim martyr who died in a war to crush the infidel.

Besides, if he got his hands on a nuclear bomb, then he could have held hold it over the heads of the Arab tribal leaders in the neighborhood as a great big club and make them dance to his tune. That would have impact on the flow of oil from the Gulf, which would have impacted the big, bumbling U.S.’s economic partners. Then, the U.S. would be called upon to drag out the old military force option and wave its big stick around.

In 1990, he had tried direct action to gain control of more of the Gulf Oil, but again his military had its collective butt handed to them in Kuwait in 1991 by the overwhelming force of a U.N.-sponsored coalition led by the United States. In a funny way, he was able to portray this humiliating defeat of his troops as a victory, because had the situation been reversed, he surely would be putting the head of GHW Bush on a pike and parading it around the square. Since that didn’t happen to his head, then obviously Allah, peace be upon him, was protecting him.

The Gulf War also got him saddled him with a series of UN resolutions designed to de-fang the Mesopotamian viper. To all of which, he did what he could to defy and skirt his way around them.

In December 1998, he essentially told the UN inspectors to take a hike and leave, which resulted in President Bill Clinton ordering four days of aerial bombing and missiles strikes in an exercise called Operation Desert Fox. All that accomplished was to get the UN inspectors permanently banned from Iraq.

At the same time, at the urging of President Clinton, Congress passed a bicameral and bipartisan resolution for it to be the stated policy of the United States government to seek out and pursue a way to terminate the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Come the fall of 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed its 19th resolution advising Saddam to come clean about all his various WMD programs or face the consequences. In December 2002, we saw aee this huge document dump by the Iraqis. After review of those documents, the chief of the UN inspectors, Hans Blix, said they proved nothing and did not begin to meet the requirements laid out in the UN resolution. In short, Blix said the Iraqis were lying again and trying to be evasive.

Why did the Iraqis let the inspectors back and do the document dump? It wasn’t out the goodness of their hearts that is for sure. What had changed from January 1999 and January 2003?

Well, the big change was that in January 2003, there were increasing numbers of U.S. troops sitting in camps in the Kuwait desert. We are not talking a small group; we are talking 170,000 American Soldiers, along with about 30,000 British Tommies and a smattering of forces from some 44 other nations ranging from Italy to Lithuania. Notably absent from the ranks are the French, Germans, Russians, and the Chinese, as well as most of the other Arab nations. The thing about this coalition, whether you want to believe it or not, was that it was hoping to put some spine into the UN and prove that its “or else” threats were not just empty air.

Now, the question came: Do you use this force or not?

While the French, the Russians, and the Chinese had signed off on the previous resolutions that threatened “or else”, this the trio was had cold feet on No. 20 because it might upset their new contracts they had negotiated in violation of previous sanctions resolutions and that would never do. Besides, in a few months all support for the sanctions would collapse and the Russians, Chinese, and French could go back into the very lucrative weapons trade with the Iraqis.

And if the Iraqis did come up with a device to vaporize Tel Aviv, they could always blame the Americans for failing to take any action.

To cover Tony Blair’s butt, GW Bush agrees that is a good idea to try to get a 20th UN Security Council resolution authorizing military force. It was not that the previous 19 resolutions had not either authorized military force or at least threatened it, it was just another ‘i’ to dot and a ‘t’ to cross, to make sure that if anything went wrong, then the blame would not fall on just the Americans and the British. However, since the Chinese, the French, and the Russians all hold vetoes on the Security Council, the resolution stands stood no chance of passing.

With summer approaching, Turkey balking at letting the Americans launch a second front through its territory with the 4th Mechanized Infantry Division and with some 200,000 troops sitting in the Kuwaiti desert, Bush and Rumsfeld grew impatient, or realized that the French, the Russians, and the Chinese had no intention of letting the UN become a truly effective organization that could impose its vision on recalcitrant nations. Bush and Co. looked back at the previous 19 UNSCRs and discovered they held all the authorization for the Coalition to strike. Besides, it would be awfully expensive and degrade the combat readiness if the juggernaut was forced to sit and wait until summer passed.

So, given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s regime was starving his own people, murdering tens of thousands annually, oppressing millions, merely waiting to reopen his weapons labs and rebuild his WMD facilities, funding terrorist operations against the United States through the Palestinians, flirting with the people who had pulled off the 9/11 attack on US interests (see documentation from the Iraq Perspectives Project), had already attempted to assassinate the sitting president’s father, defied the UN by basically giving it the finger, and last but not least, its leader was basically a despicable person, George Bush and Company decided that indeed Hussein posed a clear and present danger to the health and wealth of the world and it was time to depose him.

Deposing Saddam him was the easy part. It was the aftermath that Donald Rumsfeld totally dropped the ball. To him, the Iraq war was just a testing ground for his new lighter, faster, more mobile, interconnected military force that substituted firepower for manpower. Despite the fact that the U.S. State Department actually had a plan for implementation post-bellum; it was ignored, in fact, disdained. In a bureaucratic feudal turf war, Donald Rumsefeld’s DoD told those stuffed shirts at State to take a hike and the DoD’s program of military shock and awe would sort things out. He disregarded the Pottery Shop rule and had illusions about being able to replace a vacuum with a non-existent laissezze-faire anything-goes solution.

In fumbling in the aftermath of the offensive phase of the war, Rumsfeld gave those who, for whatever reason, are predisposed to dislike, nay hate, GW Bush, ample ammunition to attack the former governor of Texas. It is ironic that the first president who has had the courage and resolution to stand up to the relentless attacks against Americans, their businesses, and their overseas representatives and say “Enough. It stops here. Beyond this we will respond with more than the niceties of our legal system. The gloves are coming off and we will strike back and hit hard,” gets such harsh treatment.

It is as if, as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto observed almost 70 years ago, the terrorists had awoken a terrible sleeping dragon and had made it angry. The dragon was awake now and tired of the pinprick attacks. It had stared down the Bear without much thanks and now was going to look out for itself.

In retrospect, the WMDs were there, especially the capability to bring production facilities rapidly on line as well as resume the pursuit of the Golden Fleece of a nuclear device. If you don’t believe that, I beg that you read the Duelfer Report in its entirety and not just the news stories summarizing inaccurately its findings.

In addition, Saddam Hussein was indeed proven to be a very malevolent despot who deserved to hang at the hands of his people.

The threat of his regime is now gone, but the threat from Iran has never gone away and if the U.S. can be run out of Iraq by asymmetrical warfare, financed in good part by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, then it will be the mullahs who have driven the Great Satan from the region and it is their time to rise, as the Xerxes of old and restore the Persian empire to is rightful place as the leader of the world, but especially the Islamic world.

If the bumbling bums of the U.S. cannot pull a rabbit out of their hat, as they seem to be doing today, then who will challenge other despots and threats to the economic stability of the world?

What it really comes down to the end of the day is all the Americans want to do is trade with other countries and sell them stuff – at a profit, of course.

PS: We seem to be winning.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Random Thoughts 2

There are a few words I would like to share, not my own, but I will add my thoughts.

Supposedly, in like 1803, there was this New York State Superior Court Judge who said:

"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature sits."

I find that thought chillingly true two centuries later while our national (U.S.) legislature sits in Washington, D.C.

An editorialist for many years, I often have been driven to comment on the workings of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches. Today, the Congressional leadership drives me to distraction. They speak as demigods who have lost touch with reality and offer no coherent plan or program that is both intellectually and emotionally consistent.

What probably distresses me the most is that it seems that we Americans seem to have lost all perspective and no longer think beyond the next quarter's bottom line. We must, and we must come up with cogent and coherent plans to deal with not just the next quarter but the next 100 quarters.

My Canadian relatives sometimes ask me my views of the current political landscape in my country and I always seem to speak with tones of anguish and disappointment. Not only in our leadership but also in the body politic at large. It truly is distressing that there seems to be a large body of people out there who have little to no understanding of the American system of governance. The United States is not a pure democracy but it is a democratic republic (if, as Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, we "can keep it."). It is not a parliamentary democracy but rather a federal republic with a written constitution that means what it says and often not what a lot of people think it says. It is designed (with malice aforethought, me thinks) to be inefficient and unwieldy, so its integral checks and balances have time to play out. But today, in an era of instant gratification and amusement, there are those who tolerances for delay have never been developed. I am reminded of two quotes from my childhood -- "Patience is a learned virtue" and "If it is good, then it is worth waiting for." Patience is a virtue we seem in desperately short supply of.

As a nation, we also seem to have this perverse habit of looking back on things we can not change and probably do not accept and lay it at the feet of some grand conspiracy.

For example, to those whose view of George W. Bush is so slanted that they still accuse him of stealing the 2000 election, I find that -- like those of us in the South who still view the Confederacy as something to venerate -- I want to tell them that (a) that battle is over and (b) the point is now moot, so it is time to get over it. Of course, like I sometimes point out to my Southern brethren, that any way you want to look at it -- slavery was at the bottom of the reasons that prompted the War of Yankee Aggression. To those who still accuse Bush of stealing the election, it is uncomfortable to remind them that a recount conducted by the leading outlets of what is now called the MSM (main stream media) in 2001 found that in just about all the scenarios, Bush still won by small numbers of votes. So, in a way, it could be argued that Gore was attempting to steal the election in Florida by way of the judicial branch. The end result of the first Tuesday in November 2000 found three days later being the same as the one that was found in May and June of 2001.

I won't go into my dissertation on the rationale and reasons for the electoral college and the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing it today but will save that for a later post.

To the great conspiracy theorists: I wish they knew the government like I know the government. To this day, I remain surprised that anything classified remains a secret.

As for the Iraq War, the great issue of the current generation: It is a just cause and a noble effort. It is still ours to lose ... or win, although, like Vietnam, I believe we lack the political will to do so. That is unfortunate, for all the soldiers I know who have been over there want and think we can achieve victory, if we keep at it.

To those who subscribe to the view that "Bush lied, people died!" perspective: I view these people with great sadness. There was no grand neo-conservative conspiracy to take the U.S. to war in Iraq. What there was was an effort by essentially well-meaning people, doing what they thought was correct, acting on imperfect and often inaccurate information, trying to build the broadest coalition possible, who made less that perfect decisions.
HELLO, WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

Don't view me as a defender of Dubya. I don't agree with him on a host of issues (although I voted for him twice, that was a matter of my judgement of the lesser of two evils -- id est: voting less for someone as against the other person who had more faults). And his abilities as a communicator and a leader leave a lot to be desired. However, he has earned my grudging respect. In the wake of 9/11, he chose to do something proactive and actively respond to those who wish all Americans ill. This was new, in my life time.

Did Dubya pick the right fights? I don't know. I do know that the sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein was unsustainable and would have collapsed. The sustainment of the no fly zones was costly in both lives and treasury and dispatching thousands of troops to sit in the sand while the U.N. arms inspectors were piddled and diddled was unworkable solution. Like those today who augur for the withdrawal from Iraq, I heard no coherent or cogent explanation of what to do after. What is your plan after the sanctions regime collapsed or the troops were withdrawn? What is your plan for the day after today? Under what contingencies are you willing to act? Under what circumstances would you deploy U.S. service members and under what rules of engagement?

Am I only among a few who view this current conflict from an historical perspective and realize that it truly has been fought on the cheap from beginning to end (and that is one of its major problems -- opting for doing it on the cheap). And yes, it is about OIL, but not for us as much as for our trading partners which in the end benefits us. Still, if it wasn't for oil, then we would not be trying to create an oasis of stability, democracy and hopefully tolerance in a region that such concepts seem as alien as something from outer space. It may be a utopian dream but I for one would rather believe that it is a universal dream.

Am I among the few who take people at their word? I don't try to parse what they are saying, but accept their words at face value. If the jihadiis say they want to kill Americans and destroy America, then I don't try to analyze the underlying problems they have or why they think that way ... I take them at face value. There are people out there who hate America, its way of life, its political and economic system and want to destroy it. I take them at their word.

Such as if the president of Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map ... I don't take it as a rhetorical device ... I take it that he means exactly that and if he can find a way to do it, will endeavor to accomplish that act.

And for those who babble about impeachment ... why waste our energy. Bush will be gone in less that 18 months and Dick Cheney along with him. Besides, impeachment would never get 67 votes in the Senate, so it is bound to fail. It really would a major waste of time, money and energy. Is this payback for the Republican effort in 1998 to remove Clinton? Let us not be so petty and have a little faith and patience in the American system of governence.

And another canard repeated by some who seem to be devoting their lives to hating GWB, I have yet to see how Bush has acted as a tyrant ... unless it is his failure the heed to advice of the progressive side of the body politic. I know not where he has violated with intent any law or criminal statute. Granted that he has done many things, advocated many policies that are actively opposed by many of different political perspectives, but he has not confiscated the property of any class of citizens without following the proscriptions of the law. He has not jailed his political opponents or seized their communications outlets as say has Hugo Chavez has in Venezuela. Chavez's latest thing is to expell all outspoken foreign critics. Those seem more the actions of a tyrant. Nor have I seen any effort by Dubya to change the constitution in order to stay in office.

I may be a simple man at heart, but I do judge people by their actions and their rhetoric. And if their rhetoric fails to match the observeable world, then their credibility is suspect.

Tis a strange world we live in ... and I only hope that we will survive.