Roundup: Beware Guiliani, Iraq & Turkey, Problems For Iran, and more!!

It's been a while but the roundup should be ok. I'm tired and I'm not sure why now...just assumed it was lack of food plus the drinking in the previous few days, but today I'm still sleepy even when I just wake up. Even took a big nap in the afternoon and still woke up tired (though not as much). Weird, huh? So, please excuse any fogginess in though, it probably won't be 100%. j/k (well, mostly)

Anyways, the roundup will follow in a similar fashion to previous ones. If your not sure what that is, see any other post (except in the Myspace blog...look down past the previous two in that case). This will be organized in the following way (in order)

- Bush's Failed Foreign Policy
- Beware a Rudy Giuliani Presidency
- Turkey's Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq
- Iraq
- Iran
- Threats of Torture and Government Censorship

------

Bush's Failed Foreign Policy

There is one piece, written by noted Middle East scholar and expert Juan Cole that I believe everyone should read. It is the perfect preamble, it is the perfect piece to read in order to give everyone here the proper context in which to read all the other links that follow this, especially the Rudy Guiliani stuff. This is a must read and it's only two pages long...seriously go read it now!! Well, OK the link is below.

Juan Cole -- The Collapse of Bush's Foreign Policy -- Now read it all. But here are some interesting parts:

The Bush administration once imagined that its presence in Afghanistan and Iraq would be anchored by friendly neighbors, Turkey to the west and Pakistan to the east. Last week, as the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to deteriorate, the anchors themselves also came loose.

On Sunday, just days after the Turkish Parliament authorized an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish guerrillas ambushed and killed 17 Turkish soldiers inside Turkey. In Karachi, Pakistan, a massive bomb nearly killed U.S.-backed Benazir Bhutto, who was supposed to help stabilize the country. The Bush administration's entire Middle East policy is coming undone -- if it even has a policy left, other than just sticking its fingers in the multiple, and multiplying, holes in the dike. (snip)...

Cole's conclusion puts it all together nicely. Explaining the complete failure and crumpling of Bush's foreign policy:

Along with the failed state in Iraq, which has neglected to use any decrease in violence temporarily provided by the recent U.S. troop escalation to effect political reconciliation, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan raises the specter of a collapse of both of Bush's major state-building projects. The turmoil in Turkey and Pakistan damages U.S. relations with two allies that are key to shoring up the countries under American occupation.

After Sept. 11, when the Bush administration launched its global "war on terror," the United States enjoyed some clear assets in fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network. In the Middle East, the United States had the support of secular Turkey, a NATO member. The long relationship of the powerful Pakistani military with that of the United States enabled Bush to turn the military dictator Musharraf against the Taliban, which Pakistan had earlier sponsored. Shiite Iran announced that it would provide help to the United States in its war on the hyper-Sunni Taliban regime. Baathist Syria and Iraq, secular Arab nationalist regimes, were potential bulwarks against Sunni radicalism in the Levant.

Like a drunken millionaire gambling away a fortune at a Las Vegas casino, the Bush administration squandered all the assets it began with by invading Iraq and unleashing chaos in the Gulf. The secular Baath Party in Iraq was replaced by Shiite fundamentalists, Sunni Salafi fundamentalists and Kurdish separatists. The pressure the Bush administration put on the Pakistani military government to combat Muslim militants in that country weakened the legitimacy of Musharraf, whom the Pakistani public increasingly viewed as an oppressive American puppet. Iraqi Kurdistan's willingness to give safe haven to the PKK alienated Turkey from both the new Iraqi government and its American patrons. Search-and-destroy missions in Afghanistan have predictably turned increasing numbers of Pushtun villagers against the United States, NATO and Karzai. The thunder of the bomb in Karachi and the Turkish shells in Iraqi Kurdistan may well be the sound of Bush losing his "war on terror."

I have nothing to add to this brilliant piece by Professor Cole.

I mentioned that the above piece is important in that it helps properly view all of the links that follow, and I mean it.

-----

Beware a Rudy Guiliani Presidency

Why is the collapse and utter failure of Bush foreign policy so important to note when it comes to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani? Quite simply, it is because when it comes to matters of foreign policy and terrorism policy Guiliani is nearly identical or worse than President Bush on the very same issues.

I've had a video on my profile of Giuliani taking on neoconservative foreign policy advisors (some too crazy even for the White House) (here the link from TPMTV), a very important thing to note, especially for a potential president with very little foreign policy experience and thus increasingly reliant on his advisors.

What is no doubt a little disconcerting about Giuliani to those who follow politics (except for Republicans of course!) is how eerily similar to President Bush he is

Rudy Giuliani, to quote a Democratic rival, would be like President Bush on steroids in the way he would go about protecting the U.S. from terrorists. In reality, Giuliani doesn't seem very different from Bush on the issue.

The former New York mayor says the government shouldn't be shy about eavesdropping on citizens. He is prepared to use military force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and root out terrorists in Pakistan. And he opposes a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, a Giuliani friend and adviser on homeland security issues, said in an interview: "I would say they're very much joined at the hip on these policies, and particularly the mind-set and commitment of both the president and Mayor Giuliani to stay on offense."

And given how "well" these policies have worked out for us the past 7 years, this observation is a very serious cause for concern. Do we really want another 7 years of Bush, or worse, "Bush on steroids" as Democrat John Edwards opined? Do we really want more Guantanamo's, more Abu Ghraibs, an indefinite occupation of Iraq, a new war in Iran and possibly Syria...do we really want someone who is so like our current President? A candidate for President so blinded that he would undermine our very Constitution (in much the same ways as our current President) and all that makes America America in order to "protect you."

In such a way as to give people the false dichotomy and choice that freedom MUST be sacrificed for security. That is a false choice: While some risk is always inherent in any system (and thats the price we pay) with many freedoms, our protection is always achievable within the bounds of our rule of law.

How is it that America lived through the most dangerous times; the Revolution, the War of 1812, fought off one of the most dangerous foes to freedom (fascism) during World War II, and faced off against an enemy with the capability of annihilate us in a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War without having to sacrifice our core American ideals, and our core Constitutional order?

The terrorist do not pose anywhere near the same level of existential threat as earlier ones yet some overreact to it and propose policies unthinkable during yet worse threats!! Why!?

It brings to mind a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

Anyways lets get on with this Rudy section...I need to further detail the crazy.

More on and his aggressive foreign policy

Bad huh? But it gets worse. Mr. Giuliani asks to have a briefing from Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz on the war....World War IV.

That is NOT a typo

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Check out what nattering nabob of neoconservativism Norman Podhoretz, a top foreign policy adviser to Rudy, has just confided to The New York Observer about a recent private conversation he had with the candidate:

Norman Podhoretz believes that America needs to go to war soon with Iran. As far as he knows, Rudy Giuliani thinks the same thing.

“I was asked to come in and give him a briefing on the war, World War IV,” said Mr. Podhoretz, a founding father of neoconservatism and leading foreign policy adviser to Mr. Giuliani. “As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how he sees the war and how I see it.”

So what does Podhoretz have to say about our Middle East policy?

America should be working to overthrow governments in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt and “every one of the despotic regimes in that region, by force if necessary and by nonmilitary means if possible,” he said. “They are fronts of the war. You can’t do everything at once. And to have toppled two of those regimes in five years or six years is I think a major achievement. And maybe George Bush won’t be able to carry it further, but I think he will. It may have just been given to him to start act one of the five-act play.”

Giuliani is surrounding himself...personally asking for advice and briefings, from a freakin' maniac!! Seriously, if Giuliani somehow wins the presidency (I doubt he will) than I will literally crap my pants in terror...seriously. Now, I don't know if it's possible to actually crap yourself in disgust as well, but I'm sure there will be some disgust mixed with that terror. Not sure how it works but I sure I'll manage it somehow.

But enough about my bowels, lets move on to Northern Iraq

---------

Turkey's Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq

Iraqi govt and US rhetoric against PKK militants have stepped up in recent days. Promises by Iraq's central government and the regional government to promise to shut down PKK offices have been met with skepticism and doubt. Likely because previous promises only led to the re-opening of such offices the very next day in another location.

Turkey sees Iraqi Kurdish authorities as very lax on stopping Kurds in their territories and lax on border enforcement

I saw an interview either yesterday morning or this morning with the Turkish ambassador to the United States and he more or less expressed that these assurances are not enough to satisfy Turkey or nearly enough to stop their drive to invade northern Iraq...they want more, and I'm not sure there are practical things the US or Iraqi forces can do that will satisfy the Turks.

This pressure seems to be getting to the US though because it recently has been reported that President Bush has offered to bomb PKK positions in Iraq

No doubt stemming from the desire not to move troops into Kurdish regions and out of other regions. I think he sees this as a way to thread the needle and satisfy Turkish rage, while not pissing of Kurds who would likely object to seeing US soldiers in their territory.

I'm honestly not sure if this will do, but it's actually possible that this could satisfy the Turks. The article offers up other alternatives: US forces (not gonna happen), or convincing the Kurdish regional government to use their security forces (Peshmerga ) to surround PKK camps and prevent them from moving beyond their mountain camps.

I'm not sure how likely it is, but the threat of invasion may just be enough of a fear that it provokes the normally lax Kurds to turn on fellow Kurds (Turkish Kurds).

Then again, this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...no doubt it has the same effect on Turkish observers. Iraqis aren't exactly cracking down like they say they would.

Despite Turkey’s demand that the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq clamp down on the PKK, there was no sign of any action against them.

On our way to the mountain, every checkpoint manned by the Iraqi army waved us through, and cheerfully provided directions on how to get to guerrilla positions.

Nor have the supply lines been cut. Several four-wheel-drive vehicles steered by toothless old men crawled along the tracks ahead of us, piled high with sackfuls of food.

If this is the result of future Iraqi assurances, than a Turkish invasion is much more likely to occur.

--------

Iraq

"I Don't Think This Place IS Worth Another Soldiers' Life" - (Washington Post)

The subheading says it all: "After 14 months in a Baghdad district torn by mounting sectarian violence, members of one U.S. unit are tired, bitter and skeptical."

Some troops just aren't seeing the point of 'being a bouncer between two brawling customers'. An interesting read.

10 anti-al-Qaeda sheiks are kidnapped - (CBS news) Pronouncements of Al-Qaeda's demise aside, this goes to show that AQI should not be counted out or written off just yet if they can still pull something like this off. Although in actuality AQI is not the most dangerous actor in Iraq, even among the Sunnis and never was.

--------

Iran

Khamenei vs. Ahmadinejad - There's some interesting internal Iranian political games being played which makes for intriguing reading. "Khamenei" of course refers to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who is considered more of the true power in Iran than Iranian President Ahmadinedjad (or any person who holds the title of President in Iran).

But with the firing, which Larijani learned through news reports rather than directly, Ahmadinejad is challenging Khamenei's authority over Iranian state matters. Ahmadinejad knows that Larijani is an agent of those who actually want to resolve Iran's nuclear situation in a constructive way while Ahmadinejad benefits from the crisis and tension with the US and Europe...(snip)

There has been fragile but real deal making going on -- and it is progress on this front that Larijani wanted to have the government announce -- but Ahmadinejad refused.

More on this soap opera later -- but the big story here is that Ahmadinejad is challenging Khamenei directly and openly with Ali Larijani's firing. It will be interesting to see if Khamenei turns the other cheek or further undermines the "Dick Cheney of Iran" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I'll definitely need to follow this story

-------

Threats of Torture and Government Censorship

I have to concur with the sentiment expressed by the author: Holy Shit!!

Basically, the FBI coerced an innocent man into confessing by threatening his family with torture, eventually the man's innocence became clear and an appeals court ruled in his favor, but the opinion was swiftly pulled off the web. Then up came a new version:

A new version that conceals and censors the fact that...you know...the guy was coerced into confessing using threats of torture against his familiy.

People tell you anything you want to hear under circumstances like that, as well as under actual physical and psychological torture too. That's why as a practice (which doesn't touch how horribly immoral and wrong it is), torture and even rough tactics as threatening relatives should not be practiced.

Anything we learn is highly suspect. In worst-case scenarios we may base important decisions and policy, decisions with large-scale implications, on the "evidence" gathered from desperate people who just want to protect their family, or just want the pain to stop. And that would be a disaster.

-----

Good night folks, that's all for tonight.

Our Exhausted Military

Came across this very dispiriting article in the 'Guardian Unlimited' this morning about the fatigue and exhaustion gripping the US military. If you read only one article today, read this one. Talking about the ill-effects of the decision to invade Iraq, the strain it put on our military has always been one of the things we bring up.

But, this article brought home how fatigued and degraded our military has become due to the Iraq occupation in a manner that was hard to imagine before.

Excerpts:

Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis (snip)...

Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

That last part is what makes this so...dispiriting. If your PR people...The people helping to put the positive spin on the Iraq war, are saying these things...well.

Remember, these are the soldiers and people who are backing up the rosy assertions of 'progress' supposedly happening because of the much vaunted 'surge.' Their own PR guys in private are not buying the BS that they are ordered to tell the media and the world.

This should make it crystal clear that we should take all those false proclamation of 'progress' that we are starting to hear, with the grain of salt most of us probably already where. [And if you've been reading me you know I've devoted a few blog posts to questioning the 'progress' of the 'surge']

They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'(snip)
A week later, in the northern city of Mosul, an officer talks privately. 'We're plodding through this,' he says after another patrol and another ambush in the city centre. 'I don't know how much more plodding we've got left in us.'

When the soldiers talk like this there is resignation. There is a corrosive anger, too, that bubbles out, like the words pouring unbidden from a chaplain's assistant who has come to bless a patrol. 'Why don't you tell the truth? Why don't you journalists write that this army is exhausted?'(snip)..

And it's not just that that the multiple 15-month tours, the lack of a clear mission or goal, or the daily violence they encounter that is simply exhausting a few soldiers. This war is effecting the overall readiness and effectiveness of our armed forces. This next excerpt drives this point home:

The anecdotal evidence on the ground confirms what others - prominent among them General Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State - have been insisting for months now: that the US army is 'about broken'. Only a third of the regular army's brigades now qualify as combat-ready. Officers educated at the elite West Point academy are leaving at a rate not seen in 30 years, with the consequence that the US army has a shortfall of 3,000 commissioned officers - and the problem is expected to worsen.

And it is not only the soldiers that are worn out. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the destruction, or wearing out, of 40 per cent of the US army's equipment, totalling at a recent count $212bn (£105bn).

The article talks about increases in desertions and absenteeism, about the lowering of standards of enlistment (scraping the bottom of the barrel), about increasing the age of enlistment all to maintain this ultimately unsustainable war stocked with soldiers.

And one of the scary things is...the situation is getting so desperate that the big 'D-word' is coming up as a possible option, when, before, to even mention it as a possibility would have caused officials in the Pentagon and White House to roll their eyes.

The Draft

'War tsar' calls for return of the draft to take the strain

America's 'war tsar' has called for the nation's political leaders to consider bringing back the draft to help a military exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a radio interview, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said the option had always been open to boost America's all-volunteer army by drafting in young men in the same way as happened in Vietnam. 'I think it makes sense to consider it,' he said. Lute was appointed 'war tsar' earlier this year after President Bush decided a single figure was needed to oversee the nation's military efforts abroad.

Rumours of a return to the draft have long circulated in military circles as the pressure from fighting two large conflicts at the same time builds on America's forces. However, politically it would be extremely difficult to achieve, especially for any leader hoping to be elected in 2008. Bush has previously ruled out the suggestion as unnecessary.

Lute, however, said the war was causing stress to military families and, as a result, was having an impact on levels of re-enlistment. 'This kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living-room conversations within these families. Ultimately the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions,' he said.

Disturbing indeed, and such a policy would effect me [I am draft age after all]. Although, in my opinion such a policy would be extremely unlikely. Not even Republicans in Congress would support the reinstatement of the draft. And on that point I hope I am right.

The Ill-Effects of the Iraq Invasion/Occupation

This war is stretching our armed forces to the point of breaking and and to the point where some military officials warn political leaders to keep their minds open to a draft, yet there are still those who would wish to extend our involvement in Iraq indefinitely. Why?!

For the sake of our armed forces, for the sake of the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives every day doing their jobs, lets bring them home. Lets bring them home as soon as possible. Lets end this long, horrendous national nightmare!

Because, lets be frank, as much as I and others dislike this war and its continuance...we are not the one living in constant danger of snippers or of IED's. We are not the ones on the front line having to execute the awful policies and prerogatives of their idiot leadership in Washington. This is real for them in a way that I, and other who've never served in Iraq could ever hope to understand.

Lets play our role and help bring about the end to this misadventure.

For them

-------

Roundup 8/12/07

I know I've been pretty inconsistent with the whole blogging thing. You should continue to expect that for at least the next couple weeks. Note: A lot of these articles of from as long as 5 days ago (I believe)...yeah, I've been pretty bad about writting.

Obama Foreign Policy/ Fall Out from Debate

After some initial strong words about unilateral strikes in Pakistan [I wrote about it..needless to say I was not happy about that part], it seems Obama is softening his tone with regards to Pakistan

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said Wednesday it's critical for Pakistan to be a constructive ally in fighting al-Qaida, one week after his hard-line pledge to hunt down terrorists in that country even without consulting President Pervez Musharraf.

Obama declined to criticize the Bush administration's policies on Pakistan, and expressed sympathy for Musharraf, who faces a growing militant backlash in his Muslim nation.

Good backtrack, although some damage has already been done. Needless to say the the Pakistani government, nor its people were very happy about his initial remarks. What a dumb thing to say in public.

Glenn Greenwald on the 'Foreign Policy Community' and its problems - I agree with Greenwalds analysis. Like him it surprises me how in the world of foreign affairs, scholars and thinkers who continually get very important issues [ like Iraq] can still be looked upon as respected thinkers to be consulted for what comes next. Why!? Their advise and cheerleading is what got us in this clusterfuck in the first place.

America is plagued by a self-anointed, highly influential, and insular so-called Foreign Policy Community which spans both political parties. They consider themselves Extremely Serious and have a whole litany of decades-old orthodoxies which one must embrace lest one be declared irresponsible, naive and unserious. Most of these orthodoxies are ossified 50-year-old relics from the Cold War, and the rest are designed to place off limits from debate the question of whether the U.S. should continue to act as an imperial force, ruling the world with its superior military power.

Well I agree with his analysis for the most part. Except that I disagree with Greenwald that Obama said anything inherently wrong or immoral with his, in essence, policy of unilateral strikes when necessary.

I think its inadvisable in 99 percent of situations but as there is a chance that it would of been necessary, I cannot say we do not have the option. For example: What if the world was not with us on the Afghanistan conflict...what if the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden [it did refuse], what if it knowingly provided it a safe-haven for al-Qaeda to set up training camps and strike at the US [it did], but what if no other nation would help us...? In that situation I think the invasion of Afghanistan would still have been necessary.

But Obama recently, completely ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to strike (or counterstike) at known terrorist targets in Pakistan or anywhere. And, I agree with him...

I know what you are thinking: Doesn't that go against your 1% chance thing just talked about above.

Well, no.

You see there is NO situation in which it would be correct or justifiable to use nuclear weapons in any nation in order to kill terrorists. The use of nuclear weapons for that purpose is too horrible and unthinkable...the carnage, the massive, massive amounts of innocent civilian dead, the rightful damage to our international image, and the example it would set for other nuclear powers should make this option absolutely unthinkable.

Second, if you have good enough intelligence to aim a nuke at, you stand a good enough chance of getting him through conventional means. There is no need for nukes. At all


Obama's 'New Foreign Policy' vs. Old Coventional Wisdom Orthodoxy

Read this memo from Founding Executive Director of the Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and a foreign policy adviser for Barack Obama - Sammantha Powers.

It's slams the old foreign policy and the problems it has caused [go to Iraq, don't talk with Iran, don't talk with adversaries or you reward bad behavior etc...] and proposed new methods.

The memo:

It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things.(snip)

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

* The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
* The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
* The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Good memo, and good foreign policy proposals for the most part. I think his stance on diplomacy is my favorite if not one of my favorite parts about his foreign policy.

Iran

Bush and Congress could collide on Iran - Basically, will Bush even see fit to come to Congress for authorization to use force in Iraq. All indication tell me that at this point he would find a way to claim that Congress cannot hamper his powers as Commander-In-Chief to wage a war in Iraq even though the Constitution is quite clear on this question.

If he were to strike Iran, he's just do it. The most Congress could do afterwards is complain about it after the fact, but there might be little Congress could do to keep him from doing it. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

And imagine what would happen. He strikes...and the criticism doesn't come because people are too afraid to say anything lest they be charged with wanting our military to fail in the current Iran mission. Speculation, I know. But who knows.

Iraq

Administration and war-cheerleader claims that the 'surge' has decreased sectarian violence has, like so many things they said, turned out to be false

Iraqi and American military officials say incidents of sectarian "cleansing" in Baghdad have decreased since a U.S. military clampdown began in February, but what is happening in Amil and neighboring Bayaa belies the claim.

Since May, Iraqi police say, more than 160 bodies have been found in Amil and Bayaa -- men without identification, usually shot and bearing signs of torture, hallmarks of sectarian death squads.

On many days, the number of corpses found in the two neighborhoods account for half of those picked up across the capital. Before the war, Amil and Bayaa were middle-class neighborhoods where Sunnis and Shiites lived easily among one another. Now, not only are they mainly Shiite, but they have become prime territory for Shiite militias looking to expand into the surrounding Sunni-dominated areas.

Like I say: Take administration claims with a grain of salt. Take military claims with a grain of salt as well.

Take General Petraeus much anticipated September Surge Progress Report with A HUGE grain of salt. Actual progress or not...the report will tell us that there is. So instead of pressure being put on withdrawal as September comes like those wavering Republicans are promising...

They instead will push for 'more time', and with that, withdrawal becomes the problem for the next president and Congress to undertake. [Both likely will be Democratic-controlled]

Dick Cheney Gets STUPIDER With Age

I bet this will surprise you. I knew his position back during the early 90's but its interesting that there is actual video of it. Really brings home how much of a dumbass he became.

Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire'

It's not the first time that citizen "investigative journalists" have uncovered some embarrassing, or telling, nugget from the past that apparently remained buried for years. But it has happened again with the posting of a now wildly popular video on YouTube that shows Dick Cheney explaining in 1994 that trying to take over Iraq would be a "bad idea" and lead to a "quagmire."

The people who put it up come from a site called Grand Theft Country, the on-screen source appears to be the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and the date on the screen is April 15, 1994. That looks right, by the age of Cheney.

I am definitely getting that video and will be putting it on my profile.

There is a saying: 'With age comes wisdom'

...Well, not always it seems.

Good night.

Barack Obama and the "New" Foreign Policy - In The Right Direction But Fraught With Problems

With all the news coverage the past few days revolving around the tragic collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis, it would certainly not surprise me if no one heard that Barack Obama recently made a very big foreign policy speech. In this speech he outlined his general views and, often as well, specific proposals and programs.

There has been a lot of controversy in the wake of Obama's big foreign policy speech, from both Republicans and Democrats, and among Democrats, and among liberals. The speech has highlighted something we already knew: Even among Democrats, even among liberals/progressives and those further Left...there is difference over what is appropriate foreign policy, what is legitimate and illegitimate actions and language. Up until know those differences have more or less been subsumed by our shared disgust and opposition to the Bush foreign policy and to Republican policies in general. But, I'll get into all that later. First the speech itself.

Overall I think the speech marks a positive departure from what goes on for 'conventional wisdom' and 'normal' foreign policy. If you remember the tenor of my last post, I have a very low regard for what passes for 'conventional wisdom' and 'normal' in Washington. This 'wisdom' has brought us much problems including the disasters of the pass 6 years.

He strikes a very positive tone, and highlights a strategy against terror that is more pragmatic, more sensitive to address underlying causes of terrorism, and one which can lead us down a road of gaining back our international prestige. All without having to sacrifice and undermine the very values that we have historically stood for. But there are some problems, and I will deal with those later on in the post.

It is quite long (really long) so I'll provide relevant snippets and add my comments:

Obama's Full Terrorism Speech:

What we saw that morning forced us to recognize that in a new world of threats, we are no longer protected by our own power. And what we saw that morning was a challenge to a new generation. [9/11]

The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph. And so a war over secession became an opportunity to set the captives free. An attack on Pearl Harbor led to a wave of freedom rolling across the Atlantic and Pacific. An Iron Curtain was punctured by democratic values, new institutions at home, and strong international partnerships abroad.

After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Here, Obama is setting up the difference between his foreign policy, and George Bush's foreign policy and its mistakes. He highlights how we took our eye off al-Qaeda and thus is implicitly informing us that his own policy against terrorism will focus on them and that it will be - unlike Bush's strategy - a comprehensive approach (military, economic, diplomacy, ideology, and sources of terrorist recruits).

Here I can certainly agree with Obama and the general idea behind his policy. Plus I like the optimistic tones he strikes, and how he speaks about the historical examples of the US making good out of earlier bad events. This to contrast between the deepening mess Bush has of the horrible events of 9/11.

What’s more, in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us.

It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.

He's calling for a change to what is now deemed "acceptable"

I love this following excerpt:

Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

Unlike what passes for "knowledge" especially among Republicans and hawkish figures, Obama shows a much more profound and deeper understanding of the complexities of the terrorism problem. He doesn't simply lump in all Muslims as terrorist, or couch our battle in terms of a clash of civilization like others are prone to do. He understands that most Muslims are not our enemies, and are far from being natural adversaries of our.

In addition, he shows his understanding of what it takes to fight this battle: Not only must we know our actual enemies, we have to know what it is we fight for. It does us no good to kill a terrorist and sacrifice all that defines us as Americans. So far so good.

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn’t exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

And worse – he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we’ve seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Precisely!! Bring the focus back on those who pose us a risk. And he makes the point I must have made so many damn times; Our bad policies, our invasion of Iraq, our general reactions to the terrorists have done nothing but play into the hands of the terrorists.

We played into their hands by reacting like they wanted us to react and getting ourselves bogged in a disaster that increases terror recruitment, lowers our image and prestige, alienates us from our allies, and damages our military. This is the war they wanted, and that is the war Bush gave them.

Good, good. Lets keep going

Summary of Obamas '5 element comprehensive strategy' to terrorism

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (snip)

...ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq’s leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support – not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Great position but the language is vague. What does he mean by "maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq"? It can be construed to mean that he plans to maintain reduced amounts of troops in Iraq. I also noticed that he says our best leverage in Iraq was to "reduce our presence" in Iraq. Not end our presence...

Troubling because when do we leave? On the one hand he shows he understand that we enable al-Qaeda to survive in Iraq due to our very presence in Iraq, but then he proposes keeping some troops (reduced numbers) in country.

WTH!? First off: How much is "reduced troop presence"

Second: It doesn't matter, it is a foolish policy. A reduced presence will not mollify the Sunni insurgents, nor the Shia militias who want the US to completely withdraw. They have no love for al Qaeda and will eliminate them once we leave, but they also want us completely out. This from one of the temporary "allies" we have among the Sunni:

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

He adds, "Especially after the help the U.S. Army has provided us, we would like them to go home as our friend, not enemy."

Obama understands our presence enables al-Qaeda in Iraq but his plan to reduce troop levels will not placate the Sunnis, nor the Shias. They will continue to attack them until there is no presence. Except, the reduced troop levels will have the unintended consequence of making US troops more vulnerable. They are less numerous, easier to kill, and the reduced numbers make their mission harder because they wont have the numbers to go on offense, nor the numbers to withstand the attacks that are sure to keep coming from Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, and al-Qaeda extremists.

Obama seems to have an...'incomplete' understanding of the dynamics of Iraq. He's close, but he makes one fundamental error in assuming that Sunnis and Shias will be satisfied with the US simply reducing troop levels. They wont. This one error in position has significant consequences to the soundness of his Iraq strategy.

So far, I don't like his policy stance as it regards Iraq. That is one very big strike against Obama.

Afghanistan & Pakistan

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.

He does connect removing troops from Iraq with increasing them in Afghanistan. He makes the point elsewhere that we took our eye of fighting in places that really had to do with the 'war on terror' by going to Iraq and neglecting to consolidate our victory in Afghanistan.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers.

Good. Nice sounding proposal.

This next part has caused much controversy:

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Careful, Obama. It is indeed true that the Taliban and al-Qaeda use the tribal regions of Pakistan as base.

I understand and sympathize with attempts to coerce Pakistani Pres. Musharraf to do more but it's not that simple. President Musharraf's grip on power is looking less and less secure with every passing day.

Musharraf, an army general who seized power in 1999, is embroiled in the toughest period of his rule. He faces intensifying pressure to restore democracy, widespread anger at last month's deadly military raid on Islamabad's Red Mosque, and surging pro-Taliban violence.

He's facing political protests and pressure from both secular and religious elements in his country. He is posed with the very real danger of militant Islamic groups.

Considering that Pakistan is a nuclear power and that it would be a disaster to instigate chaos in which, who knows, one of those nukes might get "lost", its best we be more cautious with how we deal with Pakistan.

Frankly its one of the few times I'm liable to agree with Bush that we not try and rock the boat too much and end up bringing Musharraf flying overboard. If we put too much pressure on Musharraf he might:

1) Say "fuck you" to the US. This is too much hassle. I'm sure he's get a little domestic boost for that.

2) Cave and crackdown harder in Northern Pakistan's tribal regions and cause a big shitstorm as the well armed Tribes fight Pakistan security. Further weakening Musharraf and sowing chaos in which pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaeda elements can grow. Screw it...chaos in general in not good.

Finally, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."

In theory, I agree with this but...you just do NOT say this, nor do you make this a part of your big foreign policy speech. Although he caveats it by saying 'if we have good Intel AND Musharraf wont act,' it is essentially saying 'we will unilaterally violate the sovereignty of another nation when we have to'

That is why there has been so much controversy within the Left: Many see this as a continuation of Bush's own foreign policy of unilateral preemptive strikes.

Such strikes are indeed usually not wise, but I personally cannot say that it is a bad thing by its very nature. I mean, everyone was agreed that Afghanistan was justified; they not only sheltered al-Qaeda but refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after 9/11 when the US asked. The US striked. What if we had to do it alone or unilaterally? I say we still should have gone given the circumstance.

But, and this is a BIG but...It's usually not wise or advisable. And in the particular case of Pakistan...I do not think its wise to launch any action in northern Pakistan. The potential damage resulting from such a strike would far out weigh any gain from rounding up or killing a few terrorists (even top terrorists).

And certainly you don't freakin talk about it in public you moron! How will Pakistanis react?

Well here are some reactions:

Fri Aug 3, 9:13 AM ET

Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)

Obama talks about a new foreign policy, about rebuilding our alliances, about reclaiming the respect of people around the globe, about reducing anti-Americanism; all laudable words.

But he undercuts those very goals by making these remarks. He has a great vision but he needs to stop proving he is "tough", he needs to stop trying to throw the "moderate" and "centrist" pundits and talking-heads a bone with "see, I'm serious too" on it.

Stop it!! You have a great vision, and you have the foundations for a very great foreign policy and terrorism policy that in many ways reflects my own. But there are a few significant differences that seriously undermine and weaken your terrorism policy.

That's more or less the extent of my commentary on his speech, and I've hardly scratched it. But here is a few interesting proposals that highlight what I believe are good aspects of his terrorism policy:

As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.

Interesting idea. Promotes increasing cooperation with other nations (good) to better deal with terrorism (good). I think the best part is the focus on doing so without resorting to brutality, noting quite correctly that brutality breeds terror. Brutality is indeed counter-productive, a concept that is usually lost on neoconservatives and other hawks who think the answer is always to "get tough" and put the fear of God into them.

Consider Republican Presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo and his plan to deter terrorism by holding the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina under a threat of nuclear blackmail.

Seriously....No, SERIOUSLY! But more on that an more in my next post

Diplomacy

And I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.

It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.

President Kennedy said it best: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”

Any casual reader of my posts knows that I agree 100% with this. I've railed against the idea that negotiations are rewards, and just recently I applauded Obama's stance that he would negotiate with rival nations without precondition. You shouldn't expect to get everything you want BEFORE talks...what kind of incentive do you give for nations to concede anything to the US? And they wonder why Bush diplomacy has been so unsuccessful!

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim – nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites. (snip)

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show – through deeds as well as words – that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say – as Secretary Rumsfeld did – “Freedom is untidy.” I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy. (snip)

I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open “America Houses” in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America’s Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new “ America’s Voice Corps” we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with – and listen to – the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

Highlights are more profound understanding about terrorism and root causes of it. Terrorism requires a comprehensive approach that requires us to address the environments in which extremism grows.

Final Thoughts

There is much much more. Please, give the whole speech a read.

The fact is that I agree with Obama on the vast majority of his positions and policies, but there are a few significant differences of opinion that still keeps me 'undecided' as a voter. Hopefully he can clarify his positions better and also change them around in a manner so that we are not in disagreement on such fundamentally important issues such as Iraq.