The general American media response to the Ahmadinejad visit to NYC and the United Nations illustrates why it is best to leave diplomacy to professionals.
For months the majority of this same media group has been decrying Bush's hard line approach to Iran and clamoring for more dialogue. Now, that the opportunity presents itself, that same media apparently wants to use it to insult Ahmadinejad, pin him down on the principle areas of contention and accuse him of being a crazy, petty dictator.
While the media may have valid, substantive points, it strikes me that the relationship between the two countries is far from a point wherein it is possible to make significant improvements on these points. Ahmadinejad is not going to make what he would consider to be major concessions for the sake of CBS or CNN ratings.
Certainly, in the interest of good journalism, the issues the media has raised with him should be raised, but not dwelt upon. Yet, the media interviews do not seem to be able to get beyond the most contentious issues between our countries: Israel, Iraq and nuclear proliferation. A word on each.
Although I completely support Israel's right to exist (to the point where I would prefer a formalized security pact with them guaranteeing them that right, even to providing a U.S. nuclear umbrella), I understand how and why we are losing the PR war in the Arab world on this point.
From the Arab viewpoint, Israel possesses nuclear weapons, why shouldn't they? Iran has, thus far, cooperated far more with the IAEA than Israel and its development of nuclear technology, thus far, has not gone beyond what the IAEA allows for the peaceful use of nuclear power. I hasten to also state that I suspect it is Iran's "intention" to utilize this development for nuclear weapons, but at this stage it's a "bargaining chip" with the West, not an imminent threat; that point is perhaps 2-3 years away.
In political philosophy, Israel might be described as a democratic-theocracy, while Iran might be described as a theocracy, with limited democratic ambitions. Some of our closest mid-east Arab allies fall into the same category: the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, although they are Sunni Arab, rather than Persian Shia.
The Israel-Palestinian conflict has, over the last fifty plus years acquired its own constituency. Roughly a quarter of Israel's GNP comes through foreign aid, most of which is based on the threat posed by the Arab world. And, there is still a minority expansionist element in Israeli politics. On the other side, one of the few things the Arab world has in common is hatred of Israel. It helps keep tyrants or benevolent monarchies in power. U.S. condemnation of Iran as a supporter of terrorism is chiefly based on Iranian support for anti-Israeli terror groups (certainly not Al Qaeda). I suspect that this support is more in line with Iran's ambitions to become the leading regional power and the intra-Islamic battle between Sunni and Shia for the hearts and minds of the middle eastern peoples than any genuine hatred of the Israeli people. I detect some "wiggle room" in the Iranian stance on these issues - i.e. support for the anti-Israeli terror groups, the situation in Syria, general relations with Israel and Ahmadinejad's weird and crazy views in regard to the Holocaust. Rather than reflexively respond to their current positions (which I agree are over the long run unacceptable), we should explore these areas with the Iranians.
Concerning Iraq, one needs to take a step backward. Remember that the CIA backed the overthrow of Iran's democratic government in the early fifties, when it believed it was leaning toward communism. We installed the Shah. While the Shah was a strong U.S. ally in the region and helpful toward the prosperity of Iran's upper and middle classes, over time he tended to adopt increasingly dictatorial methods in crushing popular movements (religious and democratic) among the Iranian people. The Iranian hostage taking of U.S. embassy personnel following the Shah's overthrow did not help U.S.-Iranian relations, but was subsequently resolved by President Reagan, followed by Reagan's Iran-Contra policy, which sold the Iranians weapons in their war against Iraq (whom we had earlier supported).
Following 9/11, the Iranians provided the United States with limited support in our defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, with assistance for downed U.S. aircraft, targeting and intelligence information. The Iranians, who were among the first to offer condolences for 9/11, followed this up by an apparent attempt to further an improvement of U.S.-Iranian relations with a secret diplomatic initiative, rejected hand-down by neo-conservative policy makers in Washington.
Bush's Axis of Evil speech ended that initiative and, I suspect, prompted acceleration of Iran's nuclear development program.
Today's Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents is another area upon which I detect wiggle room. For one, support to date (and based on what our government has released) is relatively minor compared to what it might be. On one hand, I am sure Iranian weapons are indeed showing up in Iraq, just as American weapons are showing up in Kurdish guerrilla attacks within Turkey. Some of their "support" may be unsanctioned. Yet, having said that, I also believe some percentage is sanctioned. The Iranians are undoubtedly supporting pro-Iranian, Shia militia groups within Iraq, just as we supported Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua; a country we felt was within our sphere of influence.
The pull-out of British forces from Basra pretty much ensures continued and increased Iranian support for a pro-Iranian, Shia regional government in southern Iraq. Having essentially accomplished their goal, the Iranians may now be in a position to negotiate a shut down in the flow of weapons to other areas of Iraq, with the agreement of their Shia allies in the south.
The nuclear issue. This issue is complex. From the Iranian perspective, there may be two motivations. The first is that they may have a genuine desire to develop peaceful nuclear power. Oil is not a renewable resource. As we use up what we have, the laws of supply and demand will become increasingly important. As world prices rise, it may be economically more profitable for Iran to export its oil resources than to utilize it for domestic consumption.
Weaponizing this capability is important within their greater goal for regional hegemony. The whole issue of nuclear proliferation in the mid-east began with Israel. I completely understand the pressures which led Israel to their own nuclear weapon capability. One of the most important factors in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute (and in the Golan Heights) is that Israel does not possess, within its original 1947-48 borders, militarily defensible borders. Developing nuclear weapons was the logical solution for a tiny country surrounded by hostile neighbors, who in turn would remain hostile as long has that attitude was essential to the continuance of regional dictatorships and monarchs. And, for us, it was/is easier to control the world market for oil by supporting these people than coping with the unpredictability of Islamic fundamentalist governments (aside from the issue of whether or not they support terrorism). The problem becomes circular.
So, what's the solution?
A first step is in ensuring Israel with permanent, defensible borders and a guarantee of its sovereignty. On the other hand, Israel cannot expect to achieve these goals without giving something up of their own. A possible "trade" is an Israeli move toward more secularization of its own society, acceptance of an internationalization of Jerusalem, a renunciation of "nuclear first strike," and a far reaching goal of eliminating its own nuclear weapon capability. Given the history of the Holocaust and the fact that the very establishment of Israel is based on religious premises, acceptance of these "goals" will not be easy, but with the nuclear proliferation issue, their survival may depend upon it. And, key toward even establishing these goals must be both a U.N. and Western guarantee (particularly by the United States) of Israeli security.
A second step is to begin preparing for civilization beyond oil, globally. On one level, Dubai appears to be a very small state now in this process. On a different level, Iran may be another.
What Iran requires is an end to sanctions and inclusion in the global community. To achieve this we cannot expect them to suddenly evolve into a western style democracy. Western market capitalism and democracy tends to play to the lowest common denominator of human nature. Many of the "improvements" in civilization accomplished by the West, frankly, have their down-side as well. If the Iranians wish to avoid these downsides by striking some type of balance between their religious beliefs and total western secularism, so be it. That's their business. But these differences should not stop their inclusion into the broader world community, to which they have much to contribute. At the moment, the cards they have to play are the restatement of their policy toward Israel, acceptance of nuclear non-proliferation, assistance in resolving the problem of Iraq and their oil.
More later.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Miscellaneous
Blackwater may be creating their own market. Turkish authorities have apparently seized weapons from the terrorist group, which espouses Kurdish independence (PPK), that have been traced to weapons brought into Iraq by Blackwater employees.
Speaking of guns...a couple of negatives on General Petraeus, whom I defended yesterday in regard to the moveon.org NYT ad. Remember that between his earlier command of the 101st Airborne and his present assignment, he served for a time as head of the U.S. effort to train Iraqi forces, which has not been particularly successful to date. Further, he was also in charge over the process of providing weapons for these forces-in-training...but established no process by which these weapons could be traced (i.e. the simple recording of serial numbers, who they went to, etc.). His only defense of this lapse has been "we were too busy."
And, finally today, there is the upcoming Dubai buy-in to NASDAQ. Apparently Dubai is purchasing approximately 20% of NASDAQ and will open a sort of NASDAQ East in Dubaii. More on this later, but this is a good example of supply side economics in the new global economy. Indeed, it might be seen as the nail in the coffin for old fashioned nationalism and American patriotism...brought to us by who else but the Bush Administration.
Speaking of guns...a couple of negatives on General Petraeus, whom I defended yesterday in regard to the moveon.org NYT ad. Remember that between his earlier command of the 101st Airborne and his present assignment, he served for a time as head of the U.S. effort to train Iraqi forces, which has not been particularly successful to date. Further, he was also in charge over the process of providing weapons for these forces-in-training...but established no process by which these weapons could be traced (i.e. the simple recording of serial numbers, who they went to, etc.). His only defense of this lapse has been "we were too busy."
And, finally today, there is the upcoming Dubai buy-in to NASDAQ. Apparently Dubai is purchasing approximately 20% of NASDAQ and will open a sort of NASDAQ East in Dubaii. More on this later, but this is a good example of supply side economics in the new global economy. Indeed, it might be seen as the nail in the coffin for old fashioned nationalism and American patriotism...brought to us by who else but the Bush Administration.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Betraying Petraeus
The moveon.org NYT ad was a mistake and beneath them. "Cutesy," took precedence over intelligence and the organization needs to reevaluate its leadership, if not its mission in life.
The same thought had occured to me, but I decided that the play on words didn't fit the situation.
The Democrats in Congress, not Bush, did much to "politicalize" Petraeus. Remember that it was them, not Bush, who insisted Petraeus return and "report" to Congress on the Surge, at the time of his Senate confirmation. If he slanted his report to favor his boss, it was to be expected. Beyond that, what General, in any Army anywhere, is going to admit failure? Too much expectation had been placed in him to expect an "objective and unbiased report."
I listened to segments of the Petraeus testimony and it brought back memories of Vietnam. In the drawn out end of that war, how often did we hear military pleas for "just a little more time and a few more troops?" Petraeus' testimony struck me as basically honest, while emphasising the little positive news he could present.
While I favor the Democratic position (s) on Iraq more than the President's, there are plenty of shabby politicians on both sides of the aisle. Asking the General whether he felt the Surge had made the United States more secure was a nonesense political question, to a field general whose main concern is the day-to-day tactical situation on the ground in Iraq, and Petraeus answered it correctly and honestly with, "I don't know."
Overall, the military has done what I think possible with the little they have. In fact, I am now beginning to wonder if the "Surge" wasn't more to preserve the status quo in Iraq than it was to improve stability. The recent ban on all U.S. civilian travel outside of the Green Zone during the suspension of Blackwater activities tells me that things are worse than we imagine, not better.
Petraeus is not the villian of this piece; the President is. Many of our Iraqi errors may be traced to the underlying philosophy of this Administration...namely that while there is an Axis of Evil abroad, the focus of Evil at home is the United States Government. Much of the corruption and inefficiency of our present Government comes not from Government itself, but from the absurd lengths this Administration has gone to, to privatize as much as possible.
The same thought had occured to me, but I decided that the play on words didn't fit the situation.
The Democrats in Congress, not Bush, did much to "politicalize" Petraeus. Remember that it was them, not Bush, who insisted Petraeus return and "report" to Congress on the Surge, at the time of his Senate confirmation. If he slanted his report to favor his boss, it was to be expected. Beyond that, what General, in any Army anywhere, is going to admit failure? Too much expectation had been placed in him to expect an "objective and unbiased report."
I listened to segments of the Petraeus testimony and it brought back memories of Vietnam. In the drawn out end of that war, how often did we hear military pleas for "just a little more time and a few more troops?" Petraeus' testimony struck me as basically honest, while emphasising the little positive news he could present.
While I favor the Democratic position (s) on Iraq more than the President's, there are plenty of shabby politicians on both sides of the aisle. Asking the General whether he felt the Surge had made the United States more secure was a nonesense political question, to a field general whose main concern is the day-to-day tactical situation on the ground in Iraq, and Petraeus answered it correctly and honestly with, "I don't know."
Overall, the military has done what I think possible with the little they have. In fact, I am now beginning to wonder if the "Surge" wasn't more to preserve the status quo in Iraq than it was to improve stability. The recent ban on all U.S. civilian travel outside of the Green Zone during the suspension of Blackwater activities tells me that things are worse than we imagine, not better.
Petraeus is not the villian of this piece; the President is. Many of our Iraqi errors may be traced to the underlying philosophy of this Administration...namely that while there is an Axis of Evil abroad, the focus of Evil at home is the United States Government. Much of the corruption and inefficiency of our present Government comes not from Government itself, but from the absurd lengths this Administration has gone to, to privatize as much as possible.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Baghdad Cowboys
Blackwater, a private security firm operating primarily in Iraq, has apparently lost its license in Iraq. Following the attempted road bombing of a Blackwater seven SUV convoy carrying State Department officials, eight Iraqi civilians were killed in a shootout.
While Blackwater gets most of the bad press, they have only approximately 1,000 of the estimated 25,000 private security personnel pretty much roaming Iraq wherever they wish to go, without coordination with either U.S. or Iraqi forces and exempt from both U.S. and Iraqi law.
Despite numerous similar incidents, no private security contractor employee has ever been arrested for anything.
Sooo...it would appear that we are responsible for at least part of Iraqi lawlessness and instability. Great. I am really beginning to wonder if there is ANYTHING this administration can get right?
Privatizing security for U.S. government and even high-ranking U.S. military personnel was worse than dumb. While we are trying to enlist a patriotic Iraqi police force and Army, we are protecting our own VIPs with hired guns. And, no one at the White House gets it, because they think EVERYTHING should be privatized. Like what's democracy all about, if its not the right to profit?
It's time for the Administration idiots to rein in the other set of idiots they've unleashed on the Iraqis...the Baghdad Cowboys. Maybe Bush can hire them to protect the ranch in retirement and save the American taxpayer the expense of a Secret Service detail for life.
If I were Defense Secretary Gates, I would stop all privatization of security for U.S. military personnel immediately. Here's the simple rule: All U.S. military personnel shall be protected by U.S. military personnel...period. If the military can't protect its own people, what makes them think they can bring stability to Iraq? If the military doesn't have adequate numbers of trained people to do this...get them NOW and/or start getting Generals who will do so.
The same principle applies to ALL U.S. government employees in Iraq. Before the American military embarks on ANY strategy for the Iraqis, they need to first and foremost fulfill the security needs of our own personnel. Otherwise, pack it up and get out of town. Geez! Doesn't GW watch Clint Eastwood films? Didn't Clint make a series of films about teaching the town folk about standing together against bad guys and self-reliance? It's the Bad Guys who bring in the hired guns...not the Good Guys!
As we phase out privatized security, it is time to immediately bring these people under control. I would suggest the UCMJ initially and then, perhaps after one year, Iraqi law. And, since we are technically still official "occupiers" of Iraq (in terms of international law), I would suggest that the U.S. military has sole responsibility for the coordination of movement and security for ALL U.S. citizens in-country, civilian or otherwise. Nobody flies in with private security protection and does "deals" on their own.
How stupid can these people be?
From a different perspective, the fact that the Iraqi central government has seized on this latest insanity to crack down on American private security firms may be an indication of "push-back" in light of my comments above on partition. Sort of: "You want to go around us in dealing with the provinces? OK, see how you like it when we start prosecuting your own cowboys?"
Only a guy that hid from the Vietnam War in the Air National Guard and one who avoided military service with deferment after deferment would approve such a system. It's the "money can do anything," philosophy. "Need an Army, hire them." Or, "you can't trust anyone not in the top tax bracket." And these are the guys who won the last election based on PATRIOTISM! Hahahahaha.
Note: Regime change and bringing the fruits of democracy to the Iraqi people are two of the very, very few remaining reasons for invading Iraq, which have yet to be proven false. Small glitch. Although we apparently expected to be greeted in the streets with flowers by democracy hungry Iraqis, we did not think, from the beginning, they could be trusted enough to prepare meals for our troops, do the laundry, etc., etc. Sooo...we "privatized" support functions. Today, including the private security forces, these support people outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq (approximately 185,000 to 160,000). So..."withdrawal" means pulling out over a quarter of a million people. Aside from the logistics involved in getting these people out, withdrawal means terminating hundreds of contracts, many of which were "no bid" awards and alienating the "vested interests." If war is hell, for the many; it is also profitable for the few.
While Blackwater gets most of the bad press, they have only approximately 1,000 of the estimated 25,000 private security personnel pretty much roaming Iraq wherever they wish to go, without coordination with either U.S. or Iraqi forces and exempt from both U.S. and Iraqi law.
Despite numerous similar incidents, no private security contractor employee has ever been arrested for anything.
Sooo...it would appear that we are responsible for at least part of Iraqi lawlessness and instability. Great. I am really beginning to wonder if there is ANYTHING this administration can get right?
Privatizing security for U.S. government and even high-ranking U.S. military personnel was worse than dumb. While we are trying to enlist a patriotic Iraqi police force and Army, we are protecting our own VIPs with hired guns. And, no one at the White House gets it, because they think EVERYTHING should be privatized. Like what's democracy all about, if its not the right to profit?
It's time for the Administration idiots to rein in the other set of idiots they've unleashed on the Iraqis...the Baghdad Cowboys. Maybe Bush can hire them to protect the ranch in retirement and save the American taxpayer the expense of a Secret Service detail for life.
If I were Defense Secretary Gates, I would stop all privatization of security for U.S. military personnel immediately. Here's the simple rule: All U.S. military personnel shall be protected by U.S. military personnel...period. If the military can't protect its own people, what makes them think they can bring stability to Iraq? If the military doesn't have adequate numbers of trained people to do this...get them NOW and/or start getting Generals who will do so.
The same principle applies to ALL U.S. government employees in Iraq. Before the American military embarks on ANY strategy for the Iraqis, they need to first and foremost fulfill the security needs of our own personnel. Otherwise, pack it up and get out of town. Geez! Doesn't GW watch Clint Eastwood films? Didn't Clint make a series of films about teaching the town folk about standing together against bad guys and self-reliance? It's the Bad Guys who bring in the hired guns...not the Good Guys!
As we phase out privatized security, it is time to immediately bring these people under control. I would suggest the UCMJ initially and then, perhaps after one year, Iraqi law. And, since we are technically still official "occupiers" of Iraq (in terms of international law), I would suggest that the U.S. military has sole responsibility for the coordination of movement and security for ALL U.S. citizens in-country, civilian or otherwise. Nobody flies in with private security protection and does "deals" on their own.
How stupid can these people be?
From a different perspective, the fact that the Iraqi central government has seized on this latest insanity to crack down on American private security firms may be an indication of "push-back" in light of my comments above on partition. Sort of: "You want to go around us in dealing with the provinces? OK, see how you like it when we start prosecuting your own cowboys?"
Only a guy that hid from the Vietnam War in the Air National Guard and one who avoided military service with deferment after deferment would approve such a system. It's the "money can do anything," philosophy. "Need an Army, hire them." Or, "you can't trust anyone not in the top tax bracket." And these are the guys who won the last election based on PATRIOTISM! Hahahahaha.
Note: Regime change and bringing the fruits of democracy to the Iraqi people are two of the very, very few remaining reasons for invading Iraq, which have yet to be proven false. Small glitch. Although we apparently expected to be greeted in the streets with flowers by democracy hungry Iraqis, we did not think, from the beginning, they could be trusted enough to prepare meals for our troops, do the laundry, etc., etc. Sooo...we "privatized" support functions. Today, including the private security forces, these support people outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq (approximately 185,000 to 160,000). So..."withdrawal" means pulling out over a quarter of a million people. Aside from the logistics involved in getting these people out, withdrawal means terminating hundreds of contracts, many of which were "no bid" awards and alienating the "vested interests." If war is hell, for the many; it is also profitable for the few.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
A Method to the Madness? And, Impeachment of the Bushkie
Wow! Two posts in a single day! As a follow on to my last posting, I am now beginning to think the President is actually shifting policy on Iraq. As posted, the moves in Anwar and the Kurdish areas at the local level may be seen as additional pressure on Baghdad to do SOMETHING. One guesses that the primary concern of the Baghdad government is essentially two-fold: staying alive until tomorrow and getting their hands on as much American aid as possible.
Now that I think about it, the actions involving local decision-making in Anwar and the north go hand-in-glove with the British decision to abandon the city of Basra in the south and fall back to the Basra international airport to the west of the city. I have "war-gamed" an Iranian invasion of Iraq simultaneous with an upsurge of the insurgency throughout the country. A quick way to lose the game is to abandon Basra and retreat to the airport. This opens the door to Iranian invasion, over the Tigris River in Basra. Assuming the Iranians are not stupid enough to invade, as a minimum, the British redeployment opens the south to increased Iranian infiltration. Another sign that the alternative to doing nothing in Baghdad may be partition.
So, these three actions (in Anwar, the Kurdish north and Basra) coupled with what amounted to a commitment to withdraw 5,000+ by Christmas and another 50,000 to 100,000 by July 2008 may be a strategic shift and message to the Maliki government that our patience has run its course. [Hmmm...it could also be a means of suckering in Iran to do something stupid, which would justify a counter-strike against its nuclear facilities]. Either way, it would seem to be indication of a major forthcoming change in U.S. policy and an awareness by the Bushkies that they have only about 14 more months to influence ANY outcome in Iraq.
IMO it could go either way. While Bush's stubbornness is legendary, so is his political ability to co-opt the ideas of others as his own. Partition has been Joe Biden's plan. One guesses that Bush will keep his options open - i.e. if the Maliki government responds with significant benchmark improvements, the current shift to supporting regional decisions will go away and Bush will have cause to claim "victory." If it fails to work and Baghdad still fails to respond, the shift will continue toward partition, with Bush co-opting the Biden proposals as his own. Regime change and regional autonomy in Anwar and the Kurd provinces, plus the failure of the American people to support a sizable and costly occupation (in lives and dollars) will suffice to claim a partial victory and blame the failure part on a dysfunctional Maliki government and, of course, us.
Best case for Bush: Baghdad gets its act together and we have withdrawals based on stability between now and the 2008 elections. Second Best Case for Bush: Baghdad fails to get its act together and we have partition, with withdrawal from Shiite areas and retention of buffer forces (roughly 50,000) in semi-permanent bases in Anwar and the north, accompanied by reduced casualties for U.S. forces (the "Let'em fight it out" option).
Aside from the rhetoric to the Republican base about "freedom and democracy," what Bush really needs is time. Time to have another go at resolving, at least temporarily, the Palestinian/Israeli issue and time to transition away from our dependency on mid-east oil. Once both of those strategic goals are met, we can move to a mid-east policy of containment and who really cares how many Sunnis kill how many Shiites or vice versa among those left in Iraq? If there is any "up-side" to our policy to date it is that our presence (and almost 4,000 American lives) have given some 4 million Sunnis the opportunity to flee as refugees to camps in Jordan and Syria and to avoid being slaughtered by the Shiite majority. [I assume the 4 million refugees are overwhelmingly Sunni in Sunni Jordan and Sunni Syria and not Shiite].
None of this detracts from the colossal error of the invasion in the first place, which brings me to impeachment.
Personally, I would just as soon impeach the President as not...perhaps for incompetence equating to criminal negligence, if not simply for launching an aggressive war based on false intelligence regarding the extent of imminent threat to the United States of attack by non-existant WMD and the false association of a very evil regime with the events of 9/11.
However, in the last analysis, right or wrong, our founding fathers made the impeachment process basically a political one. No court of law within the United States will bring George Bush before it on the basis of what I have suggested above [although certainly the International Court of Justice might, but then we've already denied them jurisdiction]. Sooo...the removal of George Bush rests with the Legislative Branch...ergo a political decision....and there just aren't enough votes to bring a bill of impeachment in the House, much less the votes to convict in the Senate. If we impeached every politician who failed to act in the best interests of the country, we wouldn't have a government...and that's OUR fault, not theirs.
And, in a curious way, I really do not blame Bushkie for his incompetence, ignorance, stubbornness or any other invective one wishes to throw his way. I blame us. I didn't vote for him, but having very deep suspicions about his abilities, neither did I try and defeat him as hard as I might have. And, I suspect that had George himself known in advance that 9/11 was coming, he would have declined to run for the Presidency. Instead, he probably did the best he could, given his limited perceptions occasioned by the world in which he lived and grew up in; a world foreign to you and I and the vast majority of the American people; think about that long and hard before you make a 2008 Presidential decision.
Four thousand American lives, hundreds of coalition lives and many multiples of that in Iraqi lives leads, I suspect, to a great deal of self-justification, just to be able to get up in the morning, but that is something he will have to live with the rest of his life and it is relatively unimportant to our future about what George thinks about himself once he leaves the Presidency. I suspect that there are still sufficient Bush supporters that he may insulate himself from his own legacy. A huge Presidential library on the SMU campus. A staff of historians and research specialists all dedicated to rewriting the history of his administration and polishing the image (everybody has to eat). Friends and speaking engagements a plenty and a sufficient number of crazy rich people to ensure his financial security. GW will never need to worry about receiving a social security check or medicare and, if he chooses, will never have to worry about having been wrong.
But, I predict, the one single judgement regarding his tenure as President of the United States from which he cannot personally escape will be found in the fact that he will never become Commissioner of Baseball...and that will truly eat at his very soul.
And, with that, sports fans...I bid you goodnight.
Now that I think about it, the actions involving local decision-making in Anwar and the north go hand-in-glove with the British decision to abandon the city of Basra in the south and fall back to the Basra international airport to the west of the city. I have "war-gamed" an Iranian invasion of Iraq simultaneous with an upsurge of the insurgency throughout the country. A quick way to lose the game is to abandon Basra and retreat to the airport. This opens the door to Iranian invasion, over the Tigris River in Basra. Assuming the Iranians are not stupid enough to invade, as a minimum, the British redeployment opens the south to increased Iranian infiltration. Another sign that the alternative to doing nothing in Baghdad may be partition.
So, these three actions (in Anwar, the Kurdish north and Basra) coupled with what amounted to a commitment to withdraw 5,000+ by Christmas and another 50,000 to 100,000 by July 2008 may be a strategic shift and message to the Maliki government that our patience has run its course. [Hmmm...it could also be a means of suckering in Iran to do something stupid, which would justify a counter-strike against its nuclear facilities]. Either way, it would seem to be indication of a major forthcoming change in U.S. policy and an awareness by the Bushkies that they have only about 14 more months to influence ANY outcome in Iraq.
IMO it could go either way. While Bush's stubbornness is legendary, so is his political ability to co-opt the ideas of others as his own. Partition has been Joe Biden's plan. One guesses that Bush will keep his options open - i.e. if the Maliki government responds with significant benchmark improvements, the current shift to supporting regional decisions will go away and Bush will have cause to claim "victory." If it fails to work and Baghdad still fails to respond, the shift will continue toward partition, with Bush co-opting the Biden proposals as his own. Regime change and regional autonomy in Anwar and the Kurd provinces, plus the failure of the American people to support a sizable and costly occupation (in lives and dollars) will suffice to claim a partial victory and blame the failure part on a dysfunctional Maliki government and, of course, us.
Best case for Bush: Baghdad gets its act together and we have withdrawals based on stability between now and the 2008 elections. Second Best Case for Bush: Baghdad fails to get its act together and we have partition, with withdrawal from Shiite areas and retention of buffer forces (roughly 50,000) in semi-permanent bases in Anwar and the north, accompanied by reduced casualties for U.S. forces (the "Let'em fight it out" option).
Aside from the rhetoric to the Republican base about "freedom and democracy," what Bush really needs is time. Time to have another go at resolving, at least temporarily, the Palestinian/Israeli issue and time to transition away from our dependency on mid-east oil. Once both of those strategic goals are met, we can move to a mid-east policy of containment and who really cares how many Sunnis kill how many Shiites or vice versa among those left in Iraq? If there is any "up-side" to our policy to date it is that our presence (and almost 4,000 American lives) have given some 4 million Sunnis the opportunity to flee as refugees to camps in Jordan and Syria and to avoid being slaughtered by the Shiite majority. [I assume the 4 million refugees are overwhelmingly Sunni in Sunni Jordan and Sunni Syria and not Shiite].
None of this detracts from the colossal error of the invasion in the first place, which brings me to impeachment.
Personally, I would just as soon impeach the President as not...perhaps for incompetence equating to criminal negligence, if not simply for launching an aggressive war based on false intelligence regarding the extent of imminent threat to the United States of attack by non-existant WMD and the false association of a very evil regime with the events of 9/11.
However, in the last analysis, right or wrong, our founding fathers made the impeachment process basically a political one. No court of law within the United States will bring George Bush before it on the basis of what I have suggested above [although certainly the International Court of Justice might, but then we've already denied them jurisdiction]. Sooo...the removal of George Bush rests with the Legislative Branch...ergo a political decision....and there just aren't enough votes to bring a bill of impeachment in the House, much less the votes to convict in the Senate. If we impeached every politician who failed to act in the best interests of the country, we wouldn't have a government...and that's OUR fault, not theirs.
And, in a curious way, I really do not blame Bushkie for his incompetence, ignorance, stubbornness or any other invective one wishes to throw his way. I blame us. I didn't vote for him, but having very deep suspicions about his abilities, neither did I try and defeat him as hard as I might have. And, I suspect that had George himself known in advance that 9/11 was coming, he would have declined to run for the Presidency. Instead, he probably did the best he could, given his limited perceptions occasioned by the world in which he lived and grew up in; a world foreign to you and I and the vast majority of the American people; think about that long and hard before you make a 2008 Presidential decision.
Four thousand American lives, hundreds of coalition lives and many multiples of that in Iraqi lives leads, I suspect, to a great deal of self-justification, just to be able to get up in the morning, but that is something he will have to live with the rest of his life and it is relatively unimportant to our future about what George thinks about himself once he leaves the Presidency. I suspect that there are still sufficient Bush supporters that he may insulate himself from his own legacy. A huge Presidential library on the SMU campus. A staff of historians and research specialists all dedicated to rewriting the history of his administration and polishing the image (everybody has to eat). Friends and speaking engagements a plenty and a sufficient number of crazy rich people to ensure his financial security. GW will never need to worry about receiving a social security check or medicare and, if he chooses, will never have to worry about having been wrong.
But, I predict, the one single judgement regarding his tenure as President of the United States from which he cannot personally escape will be found in the fact that he will never become Commissioner of Baseball...and that will truly eat at his very soul.
And, with that, sports fans...I bid you goodnight.
Odds and Ends
A few brief observations. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last week admitted that the nation's aviation system is close to collapse. It is unclear whether this is an admission of their own failings or a plea to the airlines to correct their own inadequacies? Given this administration's ideological bent, its probably both. Sort of, "we've been successful in that we've failed to regulate an industry that we should not have been regulating in the first place." Hmmm? Shades of "Great Job, Brownie."
Few in the media have picked up on this twisted logic. Given the ideological underpinnings of the Bush Administration, it succeeds when it fails. If you accept this premise, the President's legacy will be one of the most "successful," in American history.
Another case in point is the announcement last week of the signing of a contract between the Kurds and Hunt Oil for the exploration and exploitation of undiscovered oil reserves in Iraq's Kurdish north. The official U.S. position (I thought) was for a strong central Iraqi government and the equal sharing of oil derived income between all geographic and ethnic elements of the country - i.e. the central government also makes the deals with foreign contractors. So, the Kurd-Hunt Oil deal would appear to run contrary to U.S. policy. Ray (or maybe Roy) Hunt, head of Hunt Oil is one of Bush's strongest political supporters and was appointed by Bush to a civilian advisory committee on U.S. foreign policy.
Curiously, our shift in policies in the Sunni dominated Anwar province appear similar. There, and much to Baghdad's chagrin, the American military is making deals with the local Sunni powers that be.
So...the inconsistency of the Bush Administration remains consistent. On the one hand, we strategically support the strong centralized Iraqi government in Baghdad, while tactically pursuing policies which undermine that position. All, of course, consistent with achieving the ideological principle that the failure of government equates with success.
Few in the media have picked up on this twisted logic. Given the ideological underpinnings of the Bush Administration, it succeeds when it fails. If you accept this premise, the President's legacy will be one of the most "successful," in American history.
Another case in point is the announcement last week of the signing of a contract between the Kurds and Hunt Oil for the exploration and exploitation of undiscovered oil reserves in Iraq's Kurdish north. The official U.S. position (I thought) was for a strong central Iraqi government and the equal sharing of oil derived income between all geographic and ethnic elements of the country - i.e. the central government also makes the deals with foreign contractors. So, the Kurd-Hunt Oil deal would appear to run contrary to U.S. policy. Ray (or maybe Roy) Hunt, head of Hunt Oil is one of Bush's strongest political supporters and was appointed by Bush to a civilian advisory committee on U.S. foreign policy.
Curiously, our shift in policies in the Sunni dominated Anwar province appear similar. There, and much to Baghdad's chagrin, the American military is making deals with the local Sunni powers that be.
So...the inconsistency of the Bush Administration remains consistent. On the one hand, we strategically support the strong centralized Iraqi government in Baghdad, while tactically pursuing policies which undermine that position. All, of course, consistent with achieving the ideological principle that the failure of government equates with success.
Monday, September 03, 2007
This and That
The state of denial disease seems to be spreading throughout the Republican Party...and now apparently ranges from Baghdad to a Minneapolis Airport men's room. Only comment on the Larry Craig issue is that there is one obviously very sick man...whatever his gender preferences.
And, who does the Party trot out in defense...ah...Tom DeLay. Well, probably can't blame the Party itself for that, Tom was just using Craig's absurdity to promote his new book.
Prediction: If the Republican Party mainstream moderates and liberals (and, yes, even a few genuine conservatives) cannot get their Party back from the crazy Texas/Neo-Conservative/Fundamentalist Christian Wing that has control, the Party may well end up in the dust bin of history...to coin a phrase.
Bush, who this morning is in Iraq telling the Generals what they are to report to Congress next week, continues to flirt with impeachment, while the mood in the rest of the country (and among the Democratic Congress) seems to be one of "why bother?" The early arrival of the 2008 Presidential Campaign has indirectly hastened his lame duck status, which was confirmed last week by the departure of Gonzales, Rove, Snow, et al and sort of symbolically by the "Craig Affair." In a curious way, impeachment may be Bush's only hope for a positive legacy...i.e. he's impeached, along with Cheney, and the Presidency is assumed by Nancy Pelosi. Actually, I think Nancy would do a pretty good job, but she would certainly give the Nut Wing of the Republican Party some new ammunition.
Otherwise, it's 16.5 months to go and counting. Sixteen months is a very long time in politics. At the moment, I'd guess the odds on impeachment at roughly 1 in 10. And, the LAST thing Democrats would want to do is to be forced into taking responsibility for this mess BEFORE 2008. A "defanged Bush," is the ideal. More resignations, more investigations, a drawn out war, an economy slowly slipping into recession, etc. However, there are two potential "events" that could drive Congress to impeachment - Iran and scandal.
A number of pundits on the left and right have concluded that Bush will not leave office with the Iranians still pursuing nuclear weapons. Assuming the Iranians maintain their cool and simply continue with their nuclear development and avoid offerring any obvious excuse for U.S. action against them, Bush may think he has to go ahead and act without provocation. That, I suspect, would lead to significant resignations within the Administration (e.g. Gates, military, diplomats, et al) and probably demand "dual impeachment" (assuming Cheney agrees with Bush) and a constitutional crisis. [In this case, the original way the founding fathers envisioned the Presidency would be better than the Party system which has evolved. In the "good old days," the person who became Vice President was the one who received the second highest number of votes for the Presidency. Think about it. The minority was represented in the Vice Presidency. There was greater pressure on the President to "stay within bounds" between elections. The Vice President had little to do other than preside over the Senate and wait for serious Presidential mistakes.]
Impeachment might also be demanded due to scandal. I don't foresee this, but don't exclude it. Something could come up that was so "in your face" that Congress simply couldn't get by just ignoring it. Impeachment is essentially a "policial process," insomuch as it includes, in addition to "high crimes and treason," misdemeanors. The latter pretty much leaves the door open on impeachment for ANY politician today.
In Bush's case, I seriously doubt, at this stage in his Presidency, a "misdemeanor" would suffice - i.e. pretty much on the basis of what we would call "politics." Rather, the "scandal" would have to be a felony or treason of major magnitude. While there are a lot of Democrats who believe this, in fact, has occurred (e.g. the 2000 election, wiretapping, torture, energy policy, whatever) I would not think these sufficient to sway the Congressional Republican votes needed for impeachment. It would have to be on the magnitude of a major, proven felony or conspricay to overthrow the U.S. Government...such has calling off the 2008 election and assuming the title of "Chief Decider" for life. Since that is unlikely (unlikely, not impossible), the major cause for impeachment during the next 16.5 months lies in foreign policy and the misuse of military force.
More next time.
And, who does the Party trot out in defense...ah...Tom DeLay. Well, probably can't blame the Party itself for that, Tom was just using Craig's absurdity to promote his new book.
Prediction: If the Republican Party mainstream moderates and liberals (and, yes, even a few genuine conservatives) cannot get their Party back from the crazy Texas/Neo-Conservative/Fundamentalist Christian Wing that has control, the Party may well end up in the dust bin of history...to coin a phrase.
Bush, who this morning is in Iraq telling the Generals what they are to report to Congress next week, continues to flirt with impeachment, while the mood in the rest of the country (and among the Democratic Congress) seems to be one of "why bother?" The early arrival of the 2008 Presidential Campaign has indirectly hastened his lame duck status, which was confirmed last week by the departure of Gonzales, Rove, Snow, et al and sort of symbolically by the "Craig Affair." In a curious way, impeachment may be Bush's only hope for a positive legacy...i.e. he's impeached, along with Cheney, and the Presidency is assumed by Nancy Pelosi. Actually, I think Nancy would do a pretty good job, but she would certainly give the Nut Wing of the Republican Party some new ammunition.
Otherwise, it's 16.5 months to go and counting. Sixteen months is a very long time in politics. At the moment, I'd guess the odds on impeachment at roughly 1 in 10. And, the LAST thing Democrats would want to do is to be forced into taking responsibility for this mess BEFORE 2008. A "defanged Bush," is the ideal. More resignations, more investigations, a drawn out war, an economy slowly slipping into recession, etc. However, there are two potential "events" that could drive Congress to impeachment - Iran and scandal.
A number of pundits on the left and right have concluded that Bush will not leave office with the Iranians still pursuing nuclear weapons. Assuming the Iranians maintain their cool and simply continue with their nuclear development and avoid offerring any obvious excuse for U.S. action against them, Bush may think he has to go ahead and act without provocation. That, I suspect, would lead to significant resignations within the Administration (e.g. Gates, military, diplomats, et al) and probably demand "dual impeachment" (assuming Cheney agrees with Bush) and a constitutional crisis. [In this case, the original way the founding fathers envisioned the Presidency would be better than the Party system which has evolved. In the "good old days," the person who became Vice President was the one who received the second highest number of votes for the Presidency. Think about it. The minority was represented in the Vice Presidency. There was greater pressure on the President to "stay within bounds" between elections. The Vice President had little to do other than preside over the Senate and wait for serious Presidential mistakes.]
Impeachment might also be demanded due to scandal. I don't foresee this, but don't exclude it. Something could come up that was so "in your face" that Congress simply couldn't get by just ignoring it. Impeachment is essentially a "policial process," insomuch as it includes, in addition to "high crimes and treason," misdemeanors. The latter pretty much leaves the door open on impeachment for ANY politician today.
In Bush's case, I seriously doubt, at this stage in his Presidency, a "misdemeanor" would suffice - i.e. pretty much on the basis of what we would call "politics." Rather, the "scandal" would have to be a felony or treason of major magnitude. While there are a lot of Democrats who believe this, in fact, has occurred (e.g. the 2000 election, wiretapping, torture, energy policy, whatever) I would not think these sufficient to sway the Congressional Republican votes needed for impeachment. It would have to be on the magnitude of a major, proven felony or conspricay to overthrow the U.S. Government...such has calling off the 2008 election and assuming the title of "Chief Decider" for life. Since that is unlikely (unlikely, not impossible), the major cause for impeachment during the next 16.5 months lies in foreign policy and the misuse of military force.
More next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
