Orange Inflections

Breaking Bad good .. - Pic courtesy of Wikipedia

by Trebor Snillor
It’s been a while since my last entry -- lots to cover. I actually have 3 topics but probably not enough imagination to do a full article on any one of these. I will land on each thing, hummingbird style, and see what I can add to the topic.

IRAQ

Iraq is having a highly predictable meltdown as I write this. A Sunni-Al Qaeda offshoot called ISIS is rolling across northern Iraq. It’s already taken Tikrit and Mosul as well as several smaller towns. President Al Maliki’s army outnumbers ISIS 30 to 1 and it has state-of-the-art weapons donated by the USA. Such a defeat would be surprising if not for a few background details...

MOSQUE/STATE -- The Middle East has no concept of Mosque-state separation. Whatever mainstream religion is in the catbird seat will play its advantage and suppress other strains of Islam. The Iraq government is a patched together group of Shi’ite leaders who have given no acknowledgement to the Sunnis. The Sunnis are a majority in the recently conquered areas and have no allegiance to Al Maliki.

DEMOCRACY -- Jeffersonian Democracy is a hard sell throughout the Third World. It calls for an educated, involved public and one that is uncowed by any particular organized religion. The US cannot side with any religion in that region without alienating large groups of people. Obama probably has a good idea to send military advisors and request that Al Maliki be more inclusive.

HILLARY’S HARD CHOICES

I’m listening to Hillary Clinton’s latest book, Hard Choices. I have to say that it comes across like a campaign commercial -- lots of unabashed bragging about her accomplishments as Secretary of State and a “Team of Rivals”. Her first book, Living History, seemed more genuine and modest. In Hard Choices, she scolds previous Secretaries of State and Defense for taking their eyes off the ball and losing long term focus. Her book was published a couple of weeks before ISIS swept through Iraq -- the irony abounds. I’m only on Chapter 3 of a 35 chapter book so I may have more to say. Overall, I like Hillary but this book is more like a geography lesson from Doris Kearns Goodwin. It tends towards boring when it’s not bragging. Maybe it’ll pick up in the chapters to follow.

ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK

Orange is the New Black is a break-out hit on Netflix. The comedy-drama about a women’s prison has garnered a slew of awards and is a top-rated show nationally. I have a new expression -- “Breaking Bad good”. Orange is Breaking Bad good. Like Breaking Bad, it shows complicated, flawed, basically decent people who’ve made some bad choices. The show compels the viewer to sit in and binge watch a whole season in one day.

The main character, Piper, is serving a one year sentence for working as a drug mule. Pretty blonde Piper is challenged immediately in a world which is ruled by gang politics and race-based maneuvering for influence. The threats of violence and sexual aggression are very real -- the women’s universe is very much a mirror of what happens in men’s prisons. The performances are so perfect I wonder if some of these actresses might have served time.

CONCLUSION

Today we had an entire day of gentle, soaking rain. Dallas desperately needed it, but I’m surprised the channel 5 News Team completely missed this in their forecast. I’ll probably relax at home and take in another two episodes of Orange, Season 2.

Hillary’s book is a bit of a chore -- I’ll listen to it on my iPod while I work out, when I work out. The 20 minute segments will be about right for that.

Iraq is a nasty quicksand pit as anyone might’ve predicted. The country is an ill-defined hodge-podge from British Empire days .. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it fracture completely apart along geo-religious lines.

© 2014 Snillor Productions

Just Say No to Syria

13th Century Mongols at War - Pic courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
NOT ONLY NO, HELL NO

I’m in the very unusual position of being in direct opposition to John Kerry and President Obama’s hawkish stance on Syria. I’m also in the strange company of Rand Paul.. He wrote a position paper last week; I could’ve written parts of it myself. We have differences -- I think Paul might actually support a “boots-on-the-ground” occupation and that would be unthinkable to me. Rand Paul and I are in total agreement that a limited strike would serve no useful purpose and it would draw us into a quicksand pit.

Did we learn nothing from Iraq or Egypt? After 10 years, Iraq is having sectarian violence everywhere -- hundreds of deaths reported recently. In Egypt, the democratically elected Morsi tried to turn his country into a 12th century Muslim caliphate.. how’s that for unexpected returns from your “Arab Spring”? Furthermore, limited military involvement is like being a little bit pregnant; you’re in or you’re not. If you’re in, it has to be balls to the wall.

Obama is distraught over the use of chemical weapons in Syria (a fact which hasn’t been convincingly established by the way). To make chemical warfare the worst example of egregious warfare is arbitrary. When we toppled Saddam Hussein, we implicitly put wind in the sails of the militant Shiites, Saddam’s most organized enemies. Their behavior was horrific -- at one point they were using an electric drill to drill holes in the heads of their still-living captives.

SEPARATION OF MOSQUE AND STATE?

The Middle East has no concept of religious freedom, or even true democracy. The choices you have will be between the 7th and 9th circles of Hell in any Middle Eastern country. The people on either side are strident, cruel and nasty. They’re blindly devoted to primitive religious writ and cannot be reached with reason. Not one American life should be sacrificed over these terminally lost people. Really, not even any American equipment or capital should be wasted on this.

To term our role as “world police” is both hypocritical and ridiculous. Our main concern in that part of the world has ever and always been about oil and military access via air space or water. Some might add the entrenchment of Israel to that list, but Israel isn’t compelling its primitive neighbors into self-destructive craziness. They do not figure prominently in this equation.

In America, a dim view is held about organized crime. If La Famiglia shoots itself up we deplore the violence but we are relieved that they mostly direct it toward each other. That's how we need to look at the Middle East. If Baathists and jihadists must tear into each other, so be it. Ready, aim, fire -- just keep it to yourselves.

CAUTIONARY ADDENDUM

The West embraces religious freedom, but we should stay vigilant about religions who seek to replace western law with Sharia, or encourage terrorism to advance their causes. The scourge over there should remain over there, and gain no admittance over here.

© 2013 blogSpotter

Pondering Pakistan

Pakistanis protest the Ugly American - Courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

PREFACE

Let me say I'm very happy that Bin Laden was apprehended and dispatched by Navy Seals last week. The skill, the risk-taking and meticulous execution of the “hit” will probably be the stuff of legend – discussed by historians and military buffs for many years to come. This preface is also a segue into our “real” topic du jour …

PAKISTAN IS OUR FRIEND

The reader must have picked up the fact that the subtitle is dripping with sarcasm – Pakistan is not our unqualified friend. I have an instinct to pile on with conservative GOP congressmen who want to withdraw all funding to Pakistan – for the odious fact that Pakistani military intelligence very likely sheltered Osama Bin Laden for 8 years. For the past 5 years, Bin Laden lived in a conspicuous, large modern compound in Abbottabad, near a military camp. For 3 years prior to that, he lived almost as conspicuously in a small town near Abbottabad.

Pakistan's ISI claims they had no idea of Bin Laden's presence. They would have to be lying or grossly incompetent – either situation is somewhat terrible. To flesh out the total picture, it helps to look at two fairly extreme viewpoints ... Salmon Rushdie, the controversial Muslim dissident author, has described Pakistan as an “enemy state”. He stated in a recent interview that Pakistani contacts told him years ago that the ISI was sheltering terrorists. At the other extreme is ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She declared in the last two days (since Bin Laden's death) that Pakistan is our unimpeachable, most valuable ally. Well which is it? Why can't we call it as we see it, and how is it that two fairly respectable people have such divergent views?

It's because Pakistan is a patched-together ethic house of cards. Sixty different languages are spoken and many competing strains of Islam are present. The government is officially secular, but that status is continuously under threat by such groups as the vociferous Pashtuns. This ultra-conservative group comprises 15% of the population and reveres Bin Laden as a hero. The fact that Bin Laden has the blood of @ 5,000 people on his hands (including many Muslims) is dismissed as the collateral damage of jihad. Some US military analysts speculate that if Pakistan had openly ratted out Bin Laden, it would've destabilized an already unstable regime. It's further speculated that last week Pakistan looked the other way when Navy Seal helicopters invaded Pakistani airspace to conduct Operation Geronimo. Hear no evil, speak no evil and certainly – see no evil.

Thus Pakistan was almost neutral in the final tally. They didn't disclose Bin Laden's hiding place, but like Edgar Allen Poe's purloined letter Bin Laden wasn't very much hidden. They didn't “notice” our helicopters but asked us to please not do that again. They didn't protest too much. This takes the spotlight over to another place entirely... Why was Uncle Sam AWOL in all of this for 9 years.

The W. Bush administration was right in publicly claiming Pakistan as an ally. We need the secular arm of the Pakistanis to give access to air space and air bases. We couldn't have conducted the Afghan war without Pakistan's help. But the dreadful reality comes clear -- W. Bush and his immediate advisers must have really thought that Pakistan was our unequivocal ally. They must have thought that this 3rd world nation riven with assassinations and unrest would tell nothing but the truth and always serve the purposes of the USA. I hope that it was colossal naivete because the other alternative would be the dark, disturbing aspect that someone on the USA side was also hoping to shelter the mass killer.

Whatever the case may be, the fault is not Pakistan's. They are a nation in continual identity crisis. That their police and military force would be peppered with Bin Laden sympathizers should have been no great shock to the United States. That we went nine years floating on a myth about caves in Tora Bora is sadly pathetic on our part. Pakistan is what it is – a sometimes-USA-partner in a world crazed by religious extremism. Their every move should be inspected and evaluated, even as we politely smile and nod agreement. Not even Canada or Mexico is totally on board with the USA in its every move – why on earth would we think Pakistan is?

BlogSpotter thinks that there are other shoes that may need to drop out out of this whole affair. Suspicions and alternate theories run rife. For now, I will finish my Starbucks coffee. I will then do like W. Bush – look for some other diversion and hope that none of these awful things could be true.

© 2011 blogSpotter

Middle East Smackdown

Could there be a strange upside to Iraq? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
On September 11, 2001, the United States experienced the infamous Al Quaeda attack on sites in Manhattan and Washington DC. Roughly 3,000 innocent people perished and the chief perpetrator, Osama bin Laden, has yet to be captured some 7 years later. Of the 19 operatives directly involved, 15 were Saudi Arabian, along with 4 others from places such as Lebanon, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. The attackers practiced an extremist form of Sunni Islam, Wahabism, which is militantly hostile to any western presence in the Middle East. Their Al Quaeda training base was in Afghanistan; it gained a foothold using US weapons left over from fighting the Soviet occupation 20 years earlier.

The Bush Administration did execute a military action against Al Quaeda in 2002 in Afghanistan, which served more to drive them underground than to vanquish them. As of this writing, Al Quaeda is still alive and well in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. One action the U.S. did take, which has almost universally been seen as “Bush’s Folly” is the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime in nearby Iraq. Here are some interesting things to note about these people we attacked and currently occupy:

o The majority are not Sunni Arabs, they’re Shiite.
o The Iraqi Sunnis are not the hostile Wahabi variety.
o The occupied people are Iraqis – they are not Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians or any of the nationalities that actually attacked the U.S.
o There was never a significant Al Quaeda presence in Iraq until after our 2003 invasion opened a wound, inviting opportunists across the Middle East to come in.
o Iraq is a huge, sprawling nation strategically located at the crossroads of the Middle East, rich with oil and other natural resources.

There is something unfortunate about the U.S.A. Our state department doesn’t seem to make careful distinctions about nationalities, histories, rivalries or competing strains of someone else’s religions. If you look at that part of the world, it is kind of difficult to piece it all together even for a studious person. Virtually every Middle East nation is under authoritarian rule, enforces theocracy, and has recently experienced disruptions such as assassinations and suicide bombings.

The upside to all of this is that we now indefinitely occupy Iraq, which neighbors Saudi Arabia. We indefinitely occupy Iraq, which borders Iran. We indefinitely occupy Iraq, which is but a stone’s throw from other Middle East trouble spots such as Palestine and Lebanon. The American Tiger Paw came down – and it was rather clumsy and undiscriminating in its sweep. But had 9/11 not happened, the Tiger Paw wouldn’t be there. If Quaeda had it to do over, would they want that consequence?

This is unfair you say and you’d be right. This would be like punishing a Flemish Democrat for Nazi atrocities, simply because they both might speak German and have similar last names. One difference is that the Flemish Democrat would be more likely to vociferously condemn the actions of his crazed neighbors. Saudis and other Arabs have been almost quietly supportive to their Al Quaeda brethren. How many Madrasas schools that condemn America have been closed now? None? How many have had their curriculum changed? None?

I once had a Spanish teacher keep us all late because one person was talking and nobody would fess up. The many were punished for the action of the one. The entire Middle East is under the thrall of miscreants it allows to exist. Where my Spanish teacher merely detained us 30 minutes, the Middle East is facing a smackdown by the U.S.. Just as we wrap things up in Iraq it looks like Iran is chomping at the bit for some kind of military entanglement. You know the American tiger is clumsy, inaccurate and easy to rile. Do you really want your brethren pulling his tail? People of the Middle East, any nation, who suspect that a young relative is training to be a terrorist, you might get more attuned to the situation and its possible consequences.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying about Iraq

"Simple to understand... credible and convincing" -- Picture courtesy of Sony Pictures

by blogSpotter
Every once in a while, a movie comes along which is a cultural touchstone -- discussed in literary salons, maybe even required in a college syllabus. 1964's black comedy, Dr. Strangelove, is such a movie. Directed by Stanley Kubrick, the movie serves as an indictment against knee-jerk, war-mongering anti-Communists in positions of military authority. I watched the movie this weekend (via Apple TV), and I must say the humor and content is relevant some 44 years later.

The movie is so realistic in its technical depictions of B-52 bombers and our Air Force command, that a disclaimer was required at the beginning of the movie stating, "This is fiction. The US government has safeguards to prevent this from happening". Cinematically, Peter Sellers did triple duty portraying the US President, British General Mandrake and the mad ex-Nazi weapons expert Dr. Strangelove. He excelled in all roles most hilariously as Strangelove; Mandrake is probably closest to Sellers' actual personality.

In the movie, a demented Air Force officer declares war on the Soviet Union, dispatching 34 nuclear armed B-52s to bomb Russia. He does this using "Plan R" (for emergency retaliatory action) not requiring presidential approval. The planes can only be summoned back with a secret 3-letter code which the mad general (General Jack Ripper) makes difficult to obtain by committing suicide in the bathroom. Ripper is a rabid anticommunist who believes communist-inspired fluoridated water has caused his impotence. George C. Scott plays General Buck Turgidson whose macho bravado is nearly as over-the-top as Jack Ripper. He informs the war cabinet that we could "take out the Ruskies" and keep deaths at 10 million if we just proceed and get first strike. Rounding out the crazies is Slim Pickens' B-52 pilot Major "King" Kong. He's eager to go "nuclear toe-to-toe" with the reds. The wheelchair-bound Dr. Strangelove is a war room weapons expert who actually only has two small appearances in the film. He worships technology and still has an obvious passion for Hitler.

This movie could easily be about Iraq. Our Middle East crisis doesn't involve a "Doomsday Machine" or mutually assured destruction (yet), but the differences end there. Strangelove was made in England, and I must say Americans do not come out looking good. Americans are shown as macho, shoot-from-the-lip, foam-at-mouth reactionaries with completely self-centered agendas. Remind you of anyone? One other difference between Strangelove and Iraq is that the movie had two reasonable voices -- American President Muffley and British General Mandrake. Alas, in reality we are unmoored and lost at sea -- no real voices of reason. I can't think of anyone in governmental authority right now with a realistic view of Iraq or the Middle East. If I were to remake this movie in 2008, I would use Bush and his favorite advisors -- they wouldn't even have to act, just be themselves:

Dr. Strangelove will be portrayed by Paul Wolfowitz.
General Turgidson -- George W. Bush
General Jack D. Ripper -- Dick Cheney
Major "King" Kong -- A younger John McCain

Is this movie fair in its assessment of things? In fact it is dead accurate, so accurate that the American Film Institute has ranked it in the 100 best comedies of all time. The movie is a reference point for just the type of messes we've encountered with Viet Nam and Iraq. Strangelove came out in 1964, and was probably instrumental in changing attitudes about Viet Nam, the Cold War and war in general. It's too bad the movie didn't inform us 40 years later about "preventive wars" in the Middle East.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Jigsaw Puzzle

Faisal Mosque in Pakistan -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I don't know where exactly to begin with today's blog. In "Don't Bomb, Bomb Iran" I talked about the United States' most recent debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq. In that blog, I suggested that maybe we should put out one fire before we ignite another one. Now, as we focus on the Middle East, it seems that troubles are multiplying. Here is a brief run-down:

Iran -- Iran's president has spoken in a bellicose manner about the US, has mentioned Islamic "end times" and touts Iran's nuclear progress loudly and obnoxiously.

Pakistan -- Pakistan's President Musharraf has suspended the constitution and civil liberties in reaction to protests and civil unrest. Part of this unrest was fomented by the return of ex-Prime Minister Bhutto who according to some is the presumed successor to Musharraf. The Taliban is profiting from this standoff since Musharraf and Bhutto have represented more tolerance and secularism in previous years. Now they are now fighting one another.

Turkey -- Turkey is literally up in arms over the transgressions of Kurdish rebels at its southern border. The US is working intensely with the Iraqi government in Baghdad to curtail the rebels’ activities. Here, we have the odd situation of two American allies taking warlike stances against each other.

In the above-described situations, Pakistan and Turkey have been staunch allies to the US. Losing their good graces would be a major loss for us in that part of the world. It is hard to say how much the Iraq war inflamed these other regions but it almost certainly didn't help things. Taliban groups have now been emboldened by unanswered challenges to established authority since the Iraq war put so many things in motion.

This week's Newsweek suggests that violence has abated in Iraq -- not because ethnic consensus has been reached. Instead, the lull is due to a geographic patchwork quilt of ethnic divisions where the boundaries are (at least momentarily) being respected. There is still no secularism, and no love lost between Sunni and Shias. The US military has actually been handing out arms and supplies to both groups. So, what does the future hold for this Balkanized tinderbox we've helped create? No telling.

The whole Middle East is an argument for secularism and church-state separation. Look at what happens when one variant of religion lowers the boom on every other variant. Look at what happens when crazies are swept into power and have access to nuclear weapons. If the United States can recast itself as a Peace-maker rather than a war-monger, its tenure in the Middle East should be long. That part of the world will need baby-sitting for decades to come.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Don't Bomb, Bomb Iran

Monument in Iran -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
In this week's Newsweek, Jonathan Altar talks about alternatives to bombing Iran. In his article "Before We Bomb Iran" he feels that we have fought an unintelligent war on terror, costing far too many American lives. He shudders that war mongers such as John McCain, Dick Cheney and Giuliani's advisor Norman Podhoretz are advocating war with Iran. Alter says that it's time to use our brains and not our brawn.

Alter is a very reasonable man; I'd describe him as either a centrist Democrat or a practical Liberal. He wants a more just and sensible world without being shrill about it. This week's article is no exception to his sane and sensible outlook. He cites the approach that Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman (GOP), has taken toward Iran. She is a strong advocate of economic divestiture. She will no longer invest state pension funds in Iranian projects. Other conservatives, such as former Reagan advisor Frank Gaffney agree with Ms. Steelman. Divestiture would create an economic embargo around Iran, without expending arms or manpower.

Now, I'm amazed at what Alter leaves out of the discussion. In fact, it is a topic glossed over by many people discussing war with Iran:

Do we have the troop strength?

The fact is, Al Quaeda was training in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, and it's suspected that Bin Ladin is still hiding between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We started our bellicosity there, but then became diverted with Iraq. Bush played his "volunteer army" trump card with Iraq -- which in 2003 had neither Al Quaeda nor nuclear development. Now, Afghanistan is the poppy capital of the world, ruled mostly by war lords except in its capitol city of Kabul. Al Quaeda has even reemerged there. Iraq is a huge mess -- a multiethnic civil war. It is however the place where we've staked much of our strained, over-stretched military. Troops are now serving lengthened tours of duty, often with repeated tours.

How do we attack Iran? It would very nearly call for a draft just to get a needed head count. Iran is bigger and better organized -- they might even get money and supplies from Russia, who knows. If we attacked Iran, we would have three kettles on the stove, two of which are already boiling over. It would be a horrendous mess, and one that would sit waiting for the next President to extinguish. It wouldn't necessarily be WW III as Bush said, in an uncharacteristic dramatic moment. But it would be a quicksand pit for our economy and our nation. Pretty college white boys might once again fear the Draft Board -- and the terror of involuntary conscription. A draft is about the only way we could satisfy headcount requirements. Bush and Cheney (our own American "War Lords") both found personal ways to avoid Viet Nam in their youths. The less gentille of the middle class might not be so lucky.

Yes, Jonathan Alter -- divestiture looks great by comparison. Next time, just don't leave out the man power considerations.

© 2007 blogSpotter

The Green Zone Becomes the Mean Zone

No longer a safe haven -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
The Green Zone is a highly secured area in central Baghdad, fortified with heavy cement walls around the perimeter. Access points are highly restricted and secure. The Green Zone occupies a few square blocks which were once a tourist area; Saddam's palaces, state buildings, nice hotels and affluent housing filled the space. Since the US invasion of 2003, the area is now occupied by @ 10,000 people -- 5,000 government employees and contractors share the space with roughly the same number of homeless Iraqi squatters. The Green Zone has been thought of as an ultimate safe haven although that illusion was disturbed 3 years ago when rocket bombs destroyed both the Green Zone Bazaar and the Green Zone Cafe.

Now Brian Bennet writes in this week's Newsweek about further declines in the Green Zone area. Living there was never that easy to begin with; inhabitants have to go thru weapon's checkpoints just to enter a store or restaurant. It would be like going thru airport security six times a day. The American presence will soon be shrinking (in a physical sense) because all 1500 embassy officials will be moving to the new cement-fortified embassy structure. Much of the Green Zone territory will be ceded over to the Coalition Government; one shudders to think how "secure" the ceded area will remain. The "Red Zone" (anything outside the Green Zone) is a terrorists' shooting gallery so embassy officials will essentially be imprisoned in their new building.

Iraqi employees who set foot in the Green Zone are blacklisted on the outside. They can't return to the outside world. Even if they lose their employment they must stay put and live as squatters. Some receive regular death threats on their cellular phones. Now it seems the squatters may be evicted anyhow, facing certain and extreme danger. The eviction is because a suicide bomb went off in the Parliament Cafeteria on April 12th, killing an Iraqi politician. Since this event, the Coalition Government has ruled that anyone in the Green Zone not employed by the government or contract agency is a security risk.

American advisors have sought to create a secular, Democratic safe haven in the Green Zone (if nowhere else in Iraq). But it's still no Disney World. A well-regarded Sunni imam who opens his mosque to Shiites has been shunned by Sunnis even within the walls of the Green Zone. He has also received death threats. How well does it bode for the US that we can't even create harmony on a small-scale, trial basis? What is wrong with this picture? Many of these people are the highly educated Iraqis in leadership -- people that we would hope set a standard for other Iraqis. Even as we surge our troops, we seem to be shrinking, nay recoiling in the Green Zone.

Let me digress for just a moment now. It may seem like I'm straying miles from the topic at hand, but bear with. In Lilies of the Field, Sidney Poitier plays Homer Smith, an unemployed construction worker who by happenstance, ends up helping 5 immigrant nuns build a church. With his protestant background and spiritual songs, he shows the nuns an alternate path to spiritual awareness; they ultimately see him as an angel. He helps them to let go of their Eastern European rigidity and open their hearts. Now, let's come back to the topic of Iraq. Iraq doesn't need a military surge so much as it needs a change of heart. Threats of violence mostly serve to solidify whatever prejudices exist in peoples' hearts. Where is Homer Smith when you need him most? Iraq could use him at this very moment.

© 2007 blogSpotter

What His Friends Are Saying

Bush, Blair in 2006 -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
In President Bush's waning days, things could definitely be going better. The 21,000 Iraq surge now has to be bolstered by 13,000 National Guard troops coming from 4 different brigades. They'll serve additional 1 year tours in Iraq. Given all this bolstering, how is the surge working so far? Well, from what I've read it helps suppress violence in troops' immediate locales. Is there an orderly transition to new government or a 'new way of thinking'? Hardly. We've achieved no more than previously, when troop levels were more elevated in Iraq.

Now comes an article by columnist Carl Leubsdorf. It seems that Bush strategist and pollster Matt Dowd is down on Bush. Dowd recently told the New York Times that Bush is a divider, not a uniter. He's ignored all rational input on Iraq and has a take-it-or-leave-it mentality. The Bush spokespeople have attributed Dowd's negativity to personal problems -- a difficult divorce, and death of an infant daughter. Also, his young adult son is about to pack off to Iraq. Dowd admits to the problems, but says they actually help to inform his opinion of Bush from the standpoint of husband and father. Dowd says that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sets a much better example for electable, reasonable Republicans than Bush does.

Leubsdorf further reports more 'slams' in the Book of Bush Slams. Conservative activist Vic Gold is a friend of Bush's father, Bush 41. Gold has come out with a book entitled Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP. Gold is appalled by W. Bush and describes him as 'Dan Quayle in cowboy boots'. He further describes him as a weak link, and the most out-of-touch president in modern times.

To people who voted for Bush in 2004, I can only query "Are you glad you voted for him?” Be honest. I know you had the bumper sticker that said "W -- I can't wait to vote for him again". Sometimes we buy a lemon -- seventeen warranty repairs won't fix what's wrong. I haven't even seen a GOP nominee that approaches the nasty close-minded divisiveness of W. Bush, so I'm feeling a bit more optimistic about 2008, no matter which party wins. We’ve had other Presidents that varied from mediocre to bad. Carter gave us inflation and sky high interest rates, and yet the problems of his administration cleared away like a summer storm. You might credit Reagan for part of that, and you might also say that nothing under Carter’s watch was such a mess that it couldn’t be cleaned up with a little elbow grease and a change in policy wonks. Iraq? That may just be a gift that keeps on giving, and we’ll know who to thank for it.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Left to Their Own Devices

How will it end? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
This dead horse has been pummeled already, but due to recent news headlines I feel it requires another pummeling. Today, Senators Warner and Levin will probably pass a non-binding resolution stating the Senate's opposition to Bush's "surge" plan. I don't have a problem with that resolution, other than its tepid wording. There should be some censure against a President who has basically taken leave of his senses. Overall though, there needs to be a bottom-line assessment, a cut-to-the-chase on this matter.

When we invaded Iraq in 2003, Colin Powell recommended occupation with overwhelming force. It's a tried-and-true approach for bringing order and security to a country torn by chaos, civil strife and sectarian violence. Donald Rumsfeld didn't want to occupy. In fact, according to Bob Woodward's "State of Denial", Rumsfeld didn't want Iraqis to think they were occupied; he didn't even want American troops to use the word "occupation". Apparently, Rumsfeld thought we were going to tiptoe thru the tulips in our redirection of Iraq. He bought the Chalibi line that Iraqis would welcome Americans with open arms. The only group that welcomed us that way in any measure was the fundamentalist Shia majority, kept down by Saddam Hussein in previous years.

Colin Powell is a wise man. To get Iraq under control right now, it would take a surge much larger than 21,500 troops. We would need to double our troop presence to say 280,000 and post a soldier on every street corner of every major city. Martial law and curfews would need to be in effect and a military stringency would have to dictate the daily activities of Iraqis who are otherwise disposed to blowing each other up. Will we ever send 280,000 troops to Iraq? It would open up another can of worms -- selective service and the draft. We probably couldn't get the needed troop strength without involuntary conscription in our own country. Bush's request for 21,500 troops has met with considerable opposition -- 280K is pretty well out of the question right now.

Candidates Christopher Dodd and John Edwards have called for immediate withdrawal of some or all of our troops. They've been lambasted with a picture of dire consequences -- what would happen if Iraqis were left to their own devices. Basically, the American war hawks believe that Al Quaeda would take over the show. The major fallacy here is to assume that all Sunni Muslims are supporters of Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda is an extremist fringe group, even over there. To say that all Sunnis are Al Quaeda would be like saying all American Protestants are Ku Klux Klan. It simply isn't the case. If we completely withdrew, Iraq would probably fragment along its current fault lines; the Shias would draw some support from Iran and the Sunnis would draw some support from Saudi Arabia. This fracturing is probably inevitable -- Iraq itself was cobbled together by the British in the 1920's; the British had no better understanding of Muslim ethic divisions than Americans do now.

A third possibility looms as the greatest short term likelihood and is totally unsatisfactory. We will keep enough soldiers involved to prop up a weak, ineffectual government that leans heavily toward the Shiites. American soldiers will be human sacrifices at the altar of Flawed Foreign Policy. They will continue to drive over roadside bombs and have their Blackhawk helicopters shot out of the sky. Human sacrifice is bad enough, but pointless death should never be tolerated.

Dodd and Edwards are right. We should begin a drawdown with the realization that we can't fight everyone's fight -- we are neither Shia nor Sunni in this case. We should brace for possible side effects, such as involvement by neighboring countries. Iraq held an election and they voted in an Islamic Shiite theocracy – America should have seen it coming. When Iraqis are finally left to their own devices, it will be interesting to see if this corrupt theocracy is appropriately sidelined. It may only rule over a few square miles when all is said and done. Then again, it may not rule at all.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Nam by the Numbers

Are we there again? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

With all the talk about increasing the troops in Iraq, I thought I'd review the Viet Nam War and see how the numbers compare between the two wars. When you tally all the statistics, Viet Nam was a deadlier quicksand pit by far. At it's height in the late 60's, we had 550,000 troops in Viet Nam. Over the 14 year stretch (from approximately 1961 to 1975) we lost @ 58,200 men; we were losing 1,000 men a month during the LBJ years. The Iraq numbers are paltry by comparison -- we only have 140,000 men in Iraq, and have lost roughly 2,900 men in the 3.75 years we've been there. Still, similarities abound. With Viet Nam, we had a highly unpopular, controversial Secretary of Defense -- Robert McNamara. An ex-Ford executive in his fifties, McNamara was far better at guestimating Edsel sales than running a war in Asia. Unlike Rumsfeld, McNamara saw the error of his ways while in office and tried to scale back our involvement. LBJ would not hear of it, and so McNamara resigned in 1967.

Viet Nam also had catch phrases similar to "Stay the course". "Vietnamization" was LBJ's concept of training the South Vietnamese to fight their own war. Sounds familiar doesn't it? "Containment" was a phrase used by both LBJ and Nixon, alluding to the domino theory that a communist Viet Nam might energize other Asian countries to rebell against capitalism. The last phrase to be bandied was "Peace with Honor", and many Viet Vets are in dispute about whether a peace with honor was achieved. The United States faced a well-organized, determined enemy and our allies, the South Vietnamese, were increasingly diffident -- even hostile to Americans who were supposed to be helping them. LBJ chose not to run in 1968, as he felt that his welcome mat was withdrawn -- students tried to levitate the Pentagon chanting, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

The Viet Nam war caused terrible havoc to Southeast Asia and took many lives -- but the effect on the United States was equally marked. The war caused such a rift that violent riots (1968 Democratic Convention, Kent State) rocked the nation and students became organized in antigovernment groups: Students for a Democratic Society, the Weathermen and even spin-off groups like the Symbionese Liberation Army. We don't have student rebellion to speak of now, but we do face a monolithic, seemingly faceless enemy. It appears that Al Qaeda has supplanted Communism as the great bogeyman of the day. That's not to minimize the problem of militant Islam. We just have to keep in mind what happened 40 years ago; it should serve as a warning that 550,000 troops and 14 years were not enough to quell Viet Nam. It's also worth noting that no other dominos fell when the war ended under Ford's administration. From our 40 year vanatge point, we see that Plan A was a flop in Viet Nam. Let's hope that someone has a Plan B, C or even D for Iraq.

© 2006 blogSpotter

Swimming with the Shi'ites?

Who are we supporting? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki is in a bit of a quandary. As a democratically elected "moderate" Shi'ite, his mandate is to steer Iraq towards the ways of Democracy. However, the Iraq army and police are heavily infiltrated by insurgents and inadequate for any real enforcement purposes. The Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shi'ite cleric, is far more influential on al-Maliki's governance. Al-Sadr, who has been characterized as a powerful mafia don dispensing favors, now has representation in the Iraqi Assembly -- he needs little more encouragement beyond that. Radical Shi'ites feel legitimate to advance their aggressive campaign.

The picture is even worse when one considers the chaotic mess that comprises the Iraqi government. In the December 4th issue of Newsweek, staff writer Fareed Zakaria tells of a national government whose ministries have become factionized fortresses; the Ministries of Health and Interior are Shi'ite strongholds while the Ministry of Higher Education is Sunni-dominated. Sunnis recently attacked the Ministry of Health, and the attack was answered by the Shi'ites' mass-kidnapping of personnel in the Education ministry. All of this harks back to the French Revolution where the "Committee for Public Safety" was anything but that -- it oversaw the guillotine executions. The middle class has fled Iraq and it's said that a dentist is no where to be found in Baghdad. The situation is so horrific that relatives coming to identify a loved one at the city morgue may be shot themselves. Bodies go unidentified and a relative not seen for a while may be presumed dead. As many as 20 different militias representing different strains of Islam have turned Baghdad into a crazy quilt of no-drive zones and deadly check points.

The United States has tacitly sided with the Shi'ites whether we admit it or not. We are propping up the al-Maliki government, which also is propped by al-Sadr and his army. Perhaps now we should consider the company we keep. The December 4th issue of TIME magazine tells of this lovely person -- a Shi'ite warlord named Abu Deraa. He has been dubbed the "Shi'ite Zarqawi” because of his gruesome torture techniques. One of his favorite techniques is drilling holes into the skulls of live victims. He's the prime suspect in the above-mentioned kidnapping and many of the 153 victims have not been heard from since. Zakaria rightly asks, "What are we protecting here?" If we add 20,000 troops or pull back 8,000 troops, what difference does it make? Is the al-Maliki government what we or anyone desires as an end result?

Sunnis have received a bum rap out of all the furor from 9/11 and its resultant wars. To identify all Sunnis as al-Qaeda sympathizers would be much like identifying all American Protestants as members of KKK. 85% of the Muslim world is Sunni, and it just happens that a big percentage of the Shi'ites dwell in Iraq. If a government structure is not formulated that gives power and presence to Sunnis, the violence is certain to rage on. Saudi Arabia has now suggested that they will support Sunnis if America does not. This is a harbinger of regional war and other nasty consequences to come. When George W. Bush and his neocons opened this Pandora's Box, did they ever imagine the monsters it would release? And now we must ask -- can the monsters go back in the box?

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Sunni or Later

Figuring out Iraq -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
"Flexibility" -- that is the new word coming from Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Warner, regarding Iraq. Several prominent Republicans have now started bandying about these words. Who would imagine that the White House staff, of all people, now think that "stay the course" is too rigid a phrase. Those as high up as Tony Snow, and dare we say Bush have now suggested that "stay the course" might be scrapped. James Baker, an old family friend has recently done a study of the Iraq situation, and concluded that there are politically viable ways of "not staying the course".

It seems in Iraq that we've mired ourselves in a religious civil war. It is a war between a fundamentalist Shiite majority and a determined Sunni minority. The Shiites have "prevailed" in the current government by sheer numbers but numbers like that don’t always add up. Shiites, like their Wahabist brethren are rather fundamentalist and backward in their behavior. The Sunnis, on the other hand are a group of people who are better educated, more technological and much more Western-oriented in their way of thinking. I can only surmise that 6 Sunnis with technology, common sense and a plan are superior to 6,000 Shiites with "none of the above". Furthermore, the Sunnis are more aligned with Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- allies that the US holds near and dear. In previous decades, the United States has tacitly allied itself with Sunni governments, because of the very chaos we're seeing in Baghdad, when fundamentalist Shiites take the wheel.

Rumsfeld, the devil himself, has spoken recently of giving "amnesty" to Sunni insurgents. The "A" word finally surfaced, three years after the fact. Now, what would a Sunni Iraq look like? This Iraq would probably have an iron-fisted dictator to keep everyone in line. He would be the kind of guy that doesn't take crap from anyone -- not the kind of guy we'd want in America. But Iraq is not America; it requires a zoo keeper not a Speaker of the House. The Iraq you see now, is an Iraq without adult supervision --enough said. But the Sunni Iraq would probably allow women to attend college and drive cars. It would allow open Christian worship, and it would allow Sunnis to marry Shiites. Oh, and by the way, all of that was the case before we invaded Iraq. Is it the picture we would want for America? No, not at all. America embraces secular Democratic traditions, as well as Church/State separation. But "iron-fist" Iraq is probably the best they'll do under the circumstances, and far better than the pandemonium they have right now.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

In Denial About Rumsfeld?

The silverback speaks -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Having just read an excerpt from Bob Woodward's State of Denial, I have to ask this question. "Why the Hell is Rumsfeld still Secretary of Defense?!" It is a question which ex-Chief of Staff Andrew Card and First Lady Laura Bush apparently bandied about during the 2004 election.

When Rumsfeld took the Office in 2001, he already felt that the Pentagon was way too big and bureaucratic. He immediately looked at ways to "streamline" it, and this initial view may shed light on why he thought he could win in Iraq using War Lite. He was the picture of hubris and bravado at the start -- he said that he, not the generals or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would preside over all military decisions. A silverback gorilla in full chest-thump could make no more a macho assertion of self. His later decisions would make you wonder if anyone was presiding.

Rummy picked Jay Garner to head the Iraq post-war office. When Garner questioned the small number of troops and lack of past-war planning, Rumsfeld replaced him with presidential envoy Paul Bremer. When Bremer himself ran into problems and repeated some of Garner's earlier concerns, Rumsfeld distanced himself from Bremer with weasel words: "He reports to me only technically". When Pentagon advisor Ken Adelman asked Rumsfeld if he had 3 or 4 criteria for success in Iraq, Rumsfeld weaseled some more: "Goodness it's far too complicated, there are hundreds of factors". Adelman pointed out that Rumsfeld himself had earlier advised that any mission should have a small set of well-defined major success metrics. This self-contradiction didn't seem to bother Mr. Rumsfeld.

When a May 2006 Intelligence Report said that violence in Iraq had escalated to 700-800 attacks each week, Rumsfeld told Woodward that it was all an exaggeration -- "They're counting random rounds and stuff like that". When Woodward asked about various experts' assessments of too few troops, Rumsfeld gave a pinpoint answer "Maybe too many, maybe too few it's hard to tell". Woodward asked Rumsfeld simply, "Do you feel optimistic about the outcome of the war?" Rumsfeld ignored his question and rambled about a how this war is a hard slog. When asked if he viewed himself as a military commander, Rumsfeld wormed away from that: "I'm just a Cabinet Secretary; I'm not a military commander". This from Kong the silverback who earlier claimed to preside over all.

Rumsfeld presides over weasel, mealy-mouth cowardly words and deeds. In denying the obvious and washing his hands of responsibility in all his bad decisions and fumbles, Mr. Rumsfeld represents the very worst qualities you could have in a Defense Secretary. His negative, rambling and oft-bizarre takes on what should be his paramount Iraq mission are disturbing. The man is an embarrassment to the office and yet I must say -- he is a fairly accurate reflection of this administration.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Fourth Generation Warfare?

Hezbollah martyrs, courtesy Wikipedia Commons

by blogSpotter
Syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer had a good editorial, "Outsourced Violence" in last week's Dallas Morning News. In it, she describes the current devolution of nation-states into tribes of people who act in rabid self-interest. She describes a concept called "Fourth Generation War" (military term for insurgent warfare) where primitive, narrow interest groups are now able to acquire sophisticated weapons. A result of this is new guerilla warfare that resembles full-blown wars of previous decades; we have long range missiles being launched across national boundaries by Hezbollah as one example.

Geyer goes on to say that nation states such as the United States react both clumsily and ineffectively, because we aren't grasping the problem. Israel has recently bombed Lebanon's army headquarters -- attacking the very people that are needed to rein in Hezbollah. America's actions in Iraq are equally inept -- we create more anger and insurgency by what we do.

I would concur with part of what Geyer says about tribalism, although I wouldn't be as dire about it. The tribalism she describes is mostly confined to third world countries that have never been beacons of democracy, secularism or reasoned thinking. At best, there have been briefly pacific periods where a particular Shah or Dictator presided over a non-militarized populace. It is true that more powerful weapons can now land in the hands of a few crazies. Her observation that nation states have reacted clumsily is also accurate. The US and Israel now need finesse much more than prowess. If you look at recent democracy experiments in the Middle East, you have:

• Palestine electing Hamas
• Lebanon electing Hezbollah (to 12% of their assembly)
• Iraq electing a prime minister who calls us 'butchers' and tells us to leave

Jefferson must be rolling in his grave, but at least the Middle East is not his legacy. A dose of healthy cynicism would be beneficial at this point (a la George Will). Democracy is like driving a car -- you need to have maturity, judgment, height, willingness and readiness. The Middle East may be ready for Drivers Ed or a Learner's Permit. In the meantime, beneficent dictators are about the best they will accomplish. The intellectuals of the French Revolution were horrified to discover that peasants wanted to reinstate a King. And France did end up with an Emperor (Napoleon). What the US could probably do is take logical steps to curb the violence. This isn't a French Revolution -- there will be no Ayatollahs deposed -- by us at any rate. Fundamentalist religion, tribalism and lack of education will confound this part of the world for years to come. Until they can understand that tolerance and multiculturalism are aspects of a healthy democracy, nations of the Middle East will roil in a violent misfortune of their own making.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

A Dead Horse

courtesy TIME

by blogSpotter
Last week's TIME magazine had a cover story titled "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy". The authors, Mike Allen and Romesh Ratnesar, describe Bush's earlier neocon doctrine as "muscular, idealistic and unilateral". The doctrine basically is one that the United States carries a big stick, and will use it to pre-empt wars and acts of terrorism. Allen and Ratnesar go on to say how recent events in Lebanon, North Korea and Iran have severely tested the doctrine. Bush and his Cowboy ways have also given this blog lots to talk about. I have at least four prior blogs: How Will Bush be Remembered, Has Bush Gone Soft, Looking for an Exit Strategy and Orange Alert. In those blogs, I've gone on about Iraq and our lack of a plan for occupation. But I haven't really looked at it from a global view. Recent world events have made that a necessity; Allen and Ratnesar analyze this perfect storm in their TIME article.

After 9/11, the United States threatened to unleash the hounds on any country that created problems for us. North Korea and Iran noticed in recent months that we don't have that many hounds to release; those that we have are occupied in Iraq. On this week's Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich said that North Korea and Iran are playing the US like a ping pong ball. Imagine these two 'mice that roar' -- having fun at our expense. I'm reminded of the two squirrels in my dad's back yard -- each one in an oak tree, spaced 20 yards apart. One would race down the tree trunk, chirping at our squirrel-hating dog, Speckles. Speckles would race to kill the squirrel which easily scampered up the tree, out of harm's way. Then squirrel #2 would taunt Speckles from 20 yards away. Speckles would charge after it, with equally lame results. At best, Speckles got some exercise, and the squirrels got some entertainment.

Now there are statesmen that have more gravitas than Clint Eastwood quotes -- Collin Powell and Madelyn Albright come to mind. Such people would have proposed diplomatic solutions at the outset. Yes, we have a big stick. But we want to use it sparingly. We want other countries with similar risks and issues to share in the cost of the stick. We don't want to come up stickless because we've taken on too much. Allen and Ratnesar close their article by pointing out that our Iraq strategy has taken us away from other areas crying out for attention -- African development, international networks in Latin America or former Soviet Satellite nations.

My own optimistic interpretation is that it's not too late for diplomacy, even in Iraq. No mess is so big that someone with determination and the right attitude can't clean it up. But, that will not be this administration. Major concessions or revisions to the Bush policy would seem like repudiations to Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush himself. One other advantage of diplomacy -- it gives you more options at every turn, even when making a strategic U-turn.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Onus of the Peace-Loving Muslim

A Pilgrim at Mecca

by blogSpotter
When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the citizens of the US were horrified. McVeigh was reportedly angry over Janet Reno's handling of Waco's Branch Davidians in 1993. While many thought that Reno's actions were heavy-handed, Americans across the board thought that McVeigh should get the death penalty or life in prison. He wasn't embraced as a hero; his blond hair, blue eyes and Christian roots did not insulate him from any form of punishment. He was strapped to a gurney and sent to the next world with sodium pentothal just a few short years after his horrific deed.

Now, in Muslim countries, we have ambiguity in situations where there should be none. In Saudi Arabia's Wahabi-dominated region (origin of most 9/11 terrorists), not one madrasas school has been shut down, nor even much coerced to change curriculum ranting against 'infidels'. When some of the worst terrorist atrocities happened in recent years, the spokesmen of the Arabic world, scattered and coy, came out meekly to 'condemn' these actions. You can damn a man with faint praise -- did you know you can also praise a man with faint condemnation? In almost a winking concession that terrorism is wrong, the message appears more to be: "Don't get caught, don't make the infidels so angry that they invade our land". The gape-mouthed incredulity and moral outrage that should follow these actions is entirely missing.

This is a message to non-violent, non-terrorist Muslims. Pay particular attention if you physically look Middle Eastern and have an Arabic name. You are your brother's keeper. What your brother across the street does is a direct reflection on you. Every fiber of your being should be used to constrain Islamic zealots under your influence. The message you project should be that terrorism will not be tolerated. Many Muslims are equally terrified of their extremist brethren and of Americans. Rather than embrace a message of well-reasoned ideas, they calculate who will do less damage to a local market with bombs. This is a terrible way to navigate life -- almost a form of imprisonment without walls.

If the situation is never taken into hand better than it is now, it will necessarily devolve to one where Arabic people are universally distrusted – either as terrorists or as people who implicitly approve of terrorism. Many non-violent Muslims are essentially bullied and coerced by the violent Muslim Jihadists. Until they stand up to this most immediate form of intimidation, they will (as Shakespeare said of cowards) die a thousand deaths.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

A Policy of Containment

Rethinking Iraq

by blogSpotter
Peter Beinart is the author of The Good Fight: Why Liberals - and Only Liberals - Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. He has an editorial in this week's Time which examines our thought processes regarding Iraq. He, like many of us supported the war early on, only to discover later that it was a quicksand pit. He says that we were all holding to a "catastrophic" point of view -- one which boils down to "get them, before they get you".

His example of an earlier "catastrophist" was James Burnham, a foreign policy maker of the early 50's. Burnham thought we should attack China and Russia before either developed nuclear proficiency like ours. It boggles the mind to think how protracted, disastrous and wrong-headed such a policy would have been. Somehow, and one may suppose it's because we're dealing with a smaller enemy, we were all "catastrophists" with regard to Iraq. Beinart gives a 3-point technique for dealing with these situations, each technique accompanied with an example. His logic is very clear and one has to wish we had followed a form of it, or shift some priorities to start following it now.

• Practice containment and strengthen allied relationships. I.E., we could've contained Saddam Hussein, who was presiding over a stultified government and economy. We did containment in Europe with the Marshall Plan. It helped to win struggling democracies over to our side, and the 'false Gods' that threatened us (Leninism, totalitarianism) fell of their own accord.
• Nurture alliances based on consent, not brute force. Such alliances will have longer staying power than alliances based on coercion alone. Thus, the Soviet republics are no more, but NATO is still alive.
• Clean up your own back yard. When Sputnik launched in 1957, many Americans thought that the Soviet launch should be a call to arms by itself. Instead, under the leadership of Kennedy, we ramped up the science/math offerings at American schools and became competitive with the Soviets at what was initially their own game.

Notice that the three policies above helped to avert crises, strengthen ourselves, strengthen democratic ties -- and they turned a negative into a positive. We showed leadership and a steady hand in a complex world that could've easily rushed headlong into another world war. Such restraint is sorely needed now; I'm wondering how other administrations might have confronted the events surrounding 9/11. Islamic terrorism strikes me as something as unstable as Leninism. They practice not a life style but a "death style" -- something that might be contained until it dies its own death.

I think Beinart's 3-point plan above worked well against secular, visible enemies; not so sure how it might work against furtive, Islamic terrorists. Common sense says that oppressed people should finally see the light and throw off oppression. But where fundamentalist religion takes root, it's hard to predict that such a light of comprehension will ever shine. This kind of situation might be answered with a super strict definition of 'containment', much as Israel has contained Palestine. At least the insurgents and perpetrators are given little range to destroy anyone else's piece of mind. And so, maybe Beinart is on to something -- though it could use some refinement, based on the enemy we face.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Orange Alert

Be very afraid ...

The perception has always been that Republicans are tougher, more pragmatic and more adept at confronting terrorism than Democrats. Democrats have a reputation as bleeding hearts who always turn the other cheek. After 9/11, the American public understandably wanted a firm and unequivocal response to Al Quaeda's atrocities. Some Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, understood the importance of looking tough -- they both voted for the Iraq war. Since that fateful time, they’d probably like to reconsider their vote and their accompanying rhetoric. Now we hear that Karl Rove is going to bang the security drum again for the 2006 midterm elections. We know it’s worked before – there’s nothing like an orange alert to heighten our collective anxiety and make us ring the fire alarm. “In case of emergency, elect Cro-Magnon president”. Already, the Bin Laden tape released this month, has created an undeniable tension – one that begs for some elite military SWAT team to take the man out. If only we could beef up our military alertness ... if only.

There are so many things wrong with this picture. Since 9/11, there have been at least 3 significant terror attacks – the tube bomb in London, train bomb in Madrid and bombings in Saudi Arabia. If you counted “miscellaneous” atrocities in Indonesia and other places, the count would be much higher. Osama Bin Laden is still at large. The cynical side of me says that in this age of satellites and consummate surveillance that someone in our government knows where he is. Why would they suppress that knowledge? It’s only a speculation, and that would be another blog topic. Suffice it to say that he’s still at large after nearly 5 years. A wealthy, connected man with an entourage and a paramilitary organization that reports to him – yes he’s still at large.

As far as military wellness, we have given short shrift to everything. We didn’t ever provide enough troops for Iraq or Afghanistan. When American soldiers finish a tour of duty, they can be sent back – a Hellish new form of double jeopardy. Or if they’re injured they can become another overlooked SSN at a veteran’s hospital. They are given poor quality cladding for vehicles and poor body armor. Yes, we support our troops. Dick Cheney has sung the praises of international torture and domestic spying, but those have availed us nothing except perhaps a serious erosion of civil rights and international respect.

So do Republicans still own the topic of terrorism? I hate to say “yes”. If you refer back to my blog, “The South has Risen Again", you will note that Democrats are only electable when they nominate centrist Southerners. So far, for 2008 we have lightening rod Hillary, foot-in-mouth Dean, perennial loser Kerry and yours-to-lose-and-he-lost-it Gore. With that stellar lineup, the GOP could nominate Alfred E. Newman and he would handily win. I can only close by saying, “In case of emergency – keep your head and don’t overreact.

Looking for an Exit

How to Leave Iraq?

I normally don’t write about intensely political issues, but the Iraq war has captured my interest. Before I go much further, I must give a giant “mea culpa” for the fact that I actually supported this war back in March of 2003. Still rankling from 9/11, I thought that part of the world needed democratic and secular examples to live by. I thought that (1) Bush had a plan and further I thought that (2) we had excelled in Afghanistan. Not only was I wrong on those two points, the motive itself was mistaken. Bush’s father (Bush 1) and his own advisor Brent Scowcroft had strongly advised W against invading Iraq. Now, the chickens are here to roost and I can only suppose they’re squawking, “Dad was right”. W, being religious might honor the word of his own father. I’ve pondered whether Bush 1’s new affinity for Bill Clinton is a dig at W. Bush 1 also had Ted Kennedy as a speaker at his A&M Presidential Library last year. Maybe the two Bush’s should’ve finished the father-son fistfight they were about to start, so many years ago.

We have basically toppled a house of cards, and have not a clue how to put it back. There are several other houses of cards nearby, that we could clobber now with ease: Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. On a metaphoric roll: a Bush bull has been allowed into the china shop. He’s going down the aisle of stoneware swishing his tail mightily. Dear God, he’s now headed toward the Wedgewood, raising his horns! How do we get this bovine out of a place where he never belonged? Poor china shop, poor Iraq.

Iraq now has three splinter groups, two of which have a strong desire to secede from the others – Shias and Kurds. The Sunnis and Shias have shown extreme willingness to blow people to smithereens to make a political point. It’s an ultimate human fallacy known as suicide bombing. The Kurds are the best behaved, showing interest in democracy and women’s rights. Kurds however could pull the rug from Turkey and other countries that also have freedom-relishing Kurd populations. Shias have cozied up to Iran, which is getting nuclear weapons and would like to blow Israel away. Wonder if W is getting the picture? The “perps” in Iraq are crazed and violent – they probably need someone equally stern to smack them back into place. Oh, but we deposed him – he’s on trial now. Saddam once said, “You’ll need 11 men to replace me”. Now it seems like an understatement. You’ll need 11 men and a standing US Army. Saddam’s Iraq allowed secular worship and women’s rights along with his evil despotism; his continued reign would’ve allowed thousands of Iraqis and 2000+ Americans to continue living. Would his nastiness have been any worse than what they have now? The secularism and women’s rights are about to slip away under “Sharia” in southern Iraq. And we haven’t even touched on who gets the oil resources in the predominantly Shia south. Any more fuel needed for this fire?

Well, all we need to do is train the Iraqi police and army. Those are the two groups that get infiltrated, or suicide-bombed as they wait in line to apply for the job. I wax toward being what Spiro Agnew dubbed a “nattering nabob of negativism”. Well, let’s be positive and imagine, what – what on Earth could straighten this mess out by the time 2008 elections roll around? I’ll have to leave that to someone else – this is a non-fiction blog. 