Blogging on Meds

Spencer Ackerman attended a talk by General Petraeus at the Heritage Foundation today, and he reports the following:

Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.

McCain has been hammering Obama on his position that he’d talk to the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea without “preconditions”. Obama has noted that it’s not like he’d invite Castro over for tea, but fundamentally, he thinks that you have to talk to your enemies. He also noted in the 2nd debate that his approach might not work, but that it’s worth trying because it has the potential for a far better outcome. Although Petraeus never came out and said he supported Obama’s plan, it’s hard to read it differently. I wonder if McCain will start calling Petraeus an appeaser.

RELATED POSTS:

• Hit The Deck at Subliminal
• SWINDLE presents Rich Colman, This Saturday!
• Keith Shore and Jesse LeDoux at Giant Robot NYC
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• ‘Wilting Wonder’ Saturday Night in LA

For my money, Obama narrowly won this debate, although McCain was a little sharper than I’d expected and certainly scored some points. McCain is the guy who’s had a brutal two weeks, and it only got worse after his stunt where he said he was “suspending” his campaign and suggested the debate should be postponed, and in the polls, and a draw doesn’t do him any good. It is especially damaging to McCain when you consider that the foreign policy largely took center stage last night, and this is an issue that goes to the heart of McCain’s campaign. He’s painted himself as the foreign policy expert and the experienced hand, and he had to clearly demonstrate that he was superior to Obama in this regard. He did no such thing. Obama went toe-to-toe with McCain on all the foreign policy questions, and he hammered McCain on Iraq very effectively. In my mind, McCain scored some points when he lambasted Obama for agreeing to sit down with the Iranian president, but overall, McCain couldn’t separate himself from Obama on the issues of Russia, Georgia, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. McCain’s fumbling of the Pakistani president’s name (he called him Qadari but it’s Zardari) maybe wasn’t the biggest deal, but he claimed that Musharraf took over in 1999 when Pakistan was a “failed state.” That’s simply false. I thought Obama did a great job explaining why the more important fight was in Afghanistan. Overall, Obama showed the voters who are uncomfortable with his grasp of foreign policy that he knows his stuff and would do what it took to protect America. McCain needed a clear win on his central issue of foreign policy, and he didn’t get it.

Obama let the economic debate center too much around earmarks and spending, but he still outclassed McCain on those topics. Most voters rate the economy as their number one issue, and I think Obama was clear about his tax cuts for the middle class and how he planned to make sure everyone had health care, and he slammed McCain for his tax cut plan for the wealthiest and for his giveaways to the oil companies. The economic portion was a clear win for Obama, in my opinion. Both candidates fumbled the ball a bit on the financial crisis, so that was a wash.

So, what did everyone else think? The snap polls of undecided voters following the debate gave Obama a clear win, but it’s usually best to let things settle for a few days and then look at the polls. A lot of people noticed McCain wouldn’t look Obama in the eye and was dismissive of him, and I don’t think that will sit well with people.

The next debate will be on domestic issues, and the final debate will be on the economy, so we’re now moving on to Obama’s turf, which is not good news for McCain.

Pool Photo By Chip Somodevilla

RELATED POSTS:

• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

Here’s Charlie Gibson of ABC asking McCain about Sarah Palin’s foreign policy experience (hat tip TPM):

GIBSON: But as you know, the questions revolve really around foreign policy experience.

Can you honestly say you feel confident having someone who hasn’t traveled outside the United States until last year, dealing with an insurgent Russia, with an Iran with nuclear ambitions, with an unstable Pakistan, not to mention the war on terror?

MCCAIN: Sure. And one of the key elements of America’s national security requirements are energy. She understands the energy issues better than anybody I know in Washington, D.C., and she understands.

Alaska is right next to Russia. She understands that. Look, Sen. Obama’s never visited south of our border. I mean, please.

Sarah Palin understands that Alaska is right next to Russia. In other words, she knows how to look at a map, which, naturally, means she’s ready to lead. Meanwhile, Obama hasn’t been “south of our border.” That, of course, means he has no experience or judgment. Speaking of judgment, there’s this tidbit from the interview:

GIBSON: But you criticized, for a long time, Sen. Obama…

MCCAIN: Sure.

GIBSON: … based on his lack of experience…

MCCAIN: Sure.

GIBSON: … in your words…

MCCAIN: Yes.

GIBSON: … with the foreign policy area. Jan. 6, I’m quoting you, “Sen. Obama does not have the national security experience and background to be president.”

MCCAIN: I said he didn’t…

GIBSON: Sarah Palin does?

MCCAIN: I said that he didn’t have the judgment. He doesn’t have the judgment. He didn’t have the judgment on Iraq. He still refuses to acknowledge that the surge has succeeded.

Gov. Palin knows the surge has succeeded. She’s the commander of the Alaskan National Guard.
He said that Iran was a tiny problem. He’s never visited south of our border. He has no experience on these issues.

She has been in charge and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities. Sen. Obama has never had a position of responsibility to do with many of those responsibilities. I’m proud of her vision. I’m proud of her strength. And everybody knows energy is a key element in American strength and future. She knows how to address that issue.

Gibson asked about experience and McCain responded that he actually said judgment. This is yet another instance of McCain dodging something he’s actually said and is par for the course, so there’s no surprise there.

Note that McCain is a little obsessed with the fact that Obama’s never been south of the border. According to Sarah Palin’s spokesperson, she hasn’t either. She’s been to Kuwait and Germany to visit Alaskan national guard deployed overseas and to visit wounded troops. She’s also apparently been to Canada. Initially, her spokesperson said she also traveled to Ireland. It turned out that the trip to Ireland was actually a refueling stop in Shannon, Ireland (I’ve done that layover in Shannon, and you basically mill around the airport for a couple of hours and hop back on the plane). So, Senator McCain, Sarah Palin hasn’t been south of the border either. Does that mean she also lacks experience and judgment?

On Iran, Obama never said Iran was a tiny problem. That’s a flat out lie. And of course, Sarah Palin has no national security experience as commander of the Alaskan national guard. All guard deployments overseas, i.e. stuff having to do with national security, are handled by the white house.

This whole idea of foreign policy experience is a bit off the mark, of course. Plenty of would-be presidents ran for the office without any bona fide foreign policy credentials. However, the reason this is an issue is because McCain has run on his experience throughout this campaign and deried Obama’s lack of experience. The fact that McCain chose a running mate with no experience to be a heartbeat from the presidency shows that McCain doesn’t consider experience to be important, i.e. he knew all along his whole argument against Obama was BS. This was a last-minute political decision to rev up the base, attract female voters (polls show it’s not working, yet), and cement McCain as a maverick. It has nothing to do with the experience and judgment that McCain apparently considers to be so important. Most importantly, it shows that McCain has terrible, terrible judgment.

RELATED POSTS:

• Program:Repeat films
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

Inside a half-finished five star hotel in Djibouti this past July, several hundred foreign dignitaries, investors and journalists gathered for the first look at an ambitious plan to unite continents. Dubai-based Al Noor Holding Investment Company hopes to build a bridge — to be the world’s largest suspension structure, at points boasting 800-meters-tall pilings — between Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The bridge, spanning 29 kilometers of the Red Sea between Djibouti and Yemen, will be anchored by brand new cities on each side bearing the same name, Al Noor City, or City of Light. The estimated cost of the whole venture is somewhere around $200 billion. The visionary of this project, Tarek bin Laden, Saudi oligarch and brother-in-law of the notorious Osama, hopes in 15 to 20 years time to see his dream of the bridge and both cities become reality. But just how realistic is it?

Perhaps Djibouti’s only real asset today is its location at the junction of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. It has one of Africa’s smallest populations, estimated at around 500,000, and its land size is comparable to the US state of Massachusetts. It is also bordered by Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia — three nations who are embroiled in multiple conflicts and whose names have long generated images of famine, despotism and anarchy.

Along the road between the Djibouti-Ambouli Airport and the hotel hosting the project launch, people wandered between single-storey concrete buildings and shacks — some carried jerrycans or bundles of sticks, but most walked empty handed. Less than a kilometer away from the hotel, a naked child squatted beside a wall while groups of shirtless men slept in ditches beneath the shade of trees.

The “Bridge of the Horn” is to have a six-lane highway and three light rail lines for passenger and commercial traffic, with a goal of one day handling 100,000 cars and 20,000 rail passengers per day. There are also plans for a natural gas pipeline to run the length of the bridge from Djibouti into Yemen and onto the Persian Gulf.

If completed, the bridge will cross the aptly named Bab el Mandeb, the Gateway of Tears. It is the shortest point between Yemen and Djibouti and is named after the treacherous waters made famous for centuries of taking ships and lives. There is also the deadly threat of Somali pirates operating in the area, enough to warrant the permanent basing of an international pirate task force and several thousand French Foreign Legion and US military troops. Europe’s supply of oil from the Gulf passes through these straits making security here all the more vital.

And just as the Suez Canal controls sea traffic at the northern end of the Red Sea, the Gateway of Tears owns the shipping lanes of the south. Not far from the hotel there was a sight common to every port city from Buenos Aires to Shanghai: shipping containers. Stacked like a multi-colored set of Legos, rows of metal boxes waited to be filled with goods, loaded onto ships and sent out across the globe. This is the Horn of Africa. (more…)

RELATED POSTS:

• music video for SAMIAM is DONE!!!
• THIS IS NOT A FILM FESTIVAL AT A TRADE SHOW!
• Program:Repeat is coming!
• Guitar Hero / Gibson Charity Art Auction at SXSW
• Program:Repeat films

The President sat down with Bob Costas on NBC during the Olympics for what might have been the toughest questioning he has faced in some time. Here are a few of those questions, and the President’s replies.

(1) Bob Costas: This past week, you re-stated America’s fundamental differences with China. But, given China’s growing strength and America’s own problems, realistically, how much leverage and influence does the US have here?

Bush: First of all, I don’t see America having problems. I see America as a nation that is a world leader that has got great values. And umm…leverage is a…I don’t think you should look at the relationship as one of leverage, I think you ought to look at the relationship as one of constructive engagement where you can find common areas like North Korea and Iran but also be in a position where they respect you enough to listen to your views on religious freedom and political liberty.

(2) Bob Costas: If these Olympics are as successful as they’re shaping up to be, most people believe this only further legitimizes the ruling party in the mind of most Chinese citizens. And even absent true liberty as we understand it, the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese people are much better than they once were. Therefore, what’s the party’s incentive to reform?

Bush: Well, first of all if you’re a religious person, you understand that once religion takes hold in a society, it can’t be stopped. Secondly, I think the Olympics are going to serve as a chance for people to come and see China the way it is. And let the Chinese see the world and interface and uh…have the opportunity to converse with people from around the world. This is a very positive development, in my view, for…for peace. And you know, who knows how China is going to progress. They’ve been some through some very difficult political times, the Cultural Revolution for one, where the leadership actually created, you know, violent anarchy. The society turned on itself. All I can tell you is that it’s important for the United States to be active in this part of the world with all countries, and to stay engaged with China.

(3) Costas: Your father has long standing connections to China. He was an envoy here even before we established an official ambassador’s position during the 1970s. And he’s here with you on this trip, so there’s a connection, a family connection.

Bush: Absolutely. Yeah, it’s a great connection. You know, I can remember riding my bike around Beijing in 1975. And it is…

Costas: only bikes then [inaudible]

Bush: …unbelievable how, how far this has changed, it’s…it’s…and he feels the same way. And we were honored yesterday when the President Hu Jinato invited my dad, and me, and Laura, and my sister, and my daughter, and my brother for dinner. It was a lunch. Just a great gesture of kindness. Bob, it’s very important for the American people to know that coming here gave me a chance to obviously to root for our team, and you’ve captured that. But it’s also coming here, is a sign of respect for the Chinese people. And this is a big, important nation. We’ll have our differences. We’ll have our agreements. But in order to find common ground, and to move the world toward peace it is important for this country to show respect for the people of the country.

(4) Costas: You gonna go to a few more events before you leave?

Bush: I’m going to swimming, here. If you’d ever let me off this set…[inaudible].

Costas: (laughing) Alright, you are dismissed. Thank you Mr. President.

Reuters

Read about the story behind this picture at the LA Times blog.

RELATED POSTS:

• Program:Repeat films
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

Update: 2 bottles of wine + a late-night read of Henry Kissinger = A long rant.

All Hail Henry Kissinger, master of falsehoods and ridiculous conclusions. This is a long post; most of it is just directly from Kissinger’s op-ed in the Washington Post, which happens to be a big supporter of the war in Iraq. I’m sorry the post is so long, but it will take a while to work through and rebut all of Kissinger’s ludicrous assumptions and conclusions. Also, I will try to add all the relevant links tomorrow or over the weekend, but it’s 2 AM and I’ve got an early wake-up call, so you’ll have to do with it as is for now.

(more…)

RELATED POSTS:

• Program:Repeat films
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

John McCain, the same guy who once called the media his “base,” today accused the media of being biased towards Obama. He put out a video of various members of the press fawning over Obama. I have to admit that the video is actually pretty funny. Still, this whole line of attack shows you that John McCain is truly desperate. He’s trying to divert attention from recent events that have driven a stake through the heart of his campaign, which rests on his foreign policy “experience.”

• Iraqi PM Maliki said that Obama’s 16-month plan sounded pretty good, and even after the White House said he’d been misquoted, Maliki’s spokesperson repeated it. Then, after McCain amazingly tried to claim that he knows Maliki and Maliki didn’t really mean it, Maliki said it again.
• Bush recently sent the third-highest US State Department official to a meeting that involved Iran and European nations, the most high-level US-Iran engagement in nearly 30 years. Obama’s been calling for dialogue with Iran for some time now.
• Obama has said for a long time that we need more troops in Afghanistan, a position that McCain adopted (and then quickly revised) after hearing that the military has also called for more soldiers as the situation worsens there.

So, all of his main talking points on foreign policy have been repudiated, and Obama’s gotten stronger during the Mideast portion of his trip. McCain is right to try to turn attention to something else — wouldn’t you if people suddenly found out your opponent’s ideas make far more sense than yours — but does he really want to pick on the media? The media have consistently treated numerous McCain gaffes as jokes instead of examples that show how utterly confused he is about basic world affairs and domestic policies (just today, he talked about problems on the Iraq-Pakistan border, two countries that don’t share a border). If he turns on the media, they might actually do their jobs and scrutinize him a bit more. He can’t really afford that right now.

Here’s the video:

Obama Love

RELATED POSTS:

• music video for SAMIAM is DONE!!!
• Program:Repeat is coming!
• Program:Repeat films
• the Wrench
• Bay Area Skate Video Premiere in SF

This is pretty big news, not just from a foreign policy perspective, but also with respect to the presidential race : Bush has authorized William Burns, the 3rd highest ranking US diplomat, to attend a meeting in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear program, where he’ll interact with Saeed Jalili, Iran’s negotiator.

Bush has long resisted any direct high-level contact between the US and Iran, preferring to try to browbeat the Iranians into giving up their nuclear drive, and McCain’s taken an even harder line on Iran. Obama, of course, has said that we should negotiate with Iran from a position of strength, including meeting with Iran’s leader, in order to help our situation in Iraq. Now, Bush has pivoted in his last few months in office towards Obama’s approach. Wow. McCain has to be fuming, and I bet John Bolton’s crapping himself right now.

RELATED POSTS:

• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Jiu-Jitsu champ, Ryan Gracie dies at age 33

The Taliban Summer

Today: Jamaat-i-Islami protest US “War on Muslims” in Lahore, Pakistan—note the “Stop Bombardment on Muslims” posters

Breaking: Western Ignorance and Idiocy in Pasthuland

Hot off the wires:

DVCM) 09:58 DJ Pakistan Tribesmen Say NATO Forces Massing On Afghan Border

MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (AFP)–Tribal elders on Tuesday raised the alarm over a buildup of hundreds of NATO-led troops on the Afghanistan side of the border, but Pakistan’s military downplayed fears of any intrusion.

“We have heard there is a buildup of foreign troops,” said Malik Mohammad Afzal Khan Darpakhel, a local tribal leader in North Waziristan who isn’t affiliated with the Taliban.

“We want to warn them that 3 million tribesmen will rise against them if they try to move in,” Darpakhel told a news conference held by five elders in Miranshah, the main town in the region. Intelligence sources said some 300 NATO soldiers equipped with tanks, armored vehicles and heavy weaponry have been moved very close to Lwara Mundi, a border village in North Waziristan.

Meanwhile, the Times gets the story on what happened at the American base where nine troops were killed Sunday, when 200 Taliban launched a surprise attack. In short, the insurgents were likely retaliating for civilian deaths caused by an airstrike on July 4, which killed 47 mostly women and children. The base was less than a kilometer from the bomb site. (I noted here that the entire UK press was covering that story as the US media ignored it.) “Insurgents have been present in the area for months, including Pakistani militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group that was originally formed to fight in Kashmir,” the Times reports.

I’ve long been calling for a regional, US-brokered Kashmir summit. The respective Jihads in Afghanistan and Kashmir against the US and India are one in the same, ie ISI and MMA supported.

Hassna Chop writes…

[Sunday's attack on the US base] may or may not be true that it was a response to the air strikes. Militants have been hitting these small NATO outposts more regularly in the last few months. These outposts are small and usually only house a couple of dozen soldiers, and they’re in brutal terrain that gives the militants an edge, since they know the area better and have plenty of cover.

I wasn’t surprised to read that they were able to get inside the walls of the NATO outpost, especially since there were about 200 of them.

My guess is that this story about NATO building up troops along the border has more to do with having a larger force around to help protect these outposts and respond more quickly to attacks than invading Waziristan…because that would be suicidal.

RELATED POSTS:

• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

What a dick:

Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, John McCain said, “Maybe thats a way of killing them.”

He quickly caught himself, saying “I meant that as a joke” as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.

Seriously McCain, you’re running for President. I get that you’re a postmodern jokester who Anna Marie Cox has a crush on, but don’t say you want to kill people, especially Muslims, when you’re on a national stage. That makes Muslims want to kill Americans.

When I was in Pakistan I noticed all the Marlboros were made in Iran. I found it funny that a major GOP contributor like Altria aka Phillip Morris would be allowed to trade with America’s sworn enemy. McCain obviously sees no hypocrisy there…

RELATED POSTS:

• THIS IS NOT A FILM FESTIVAL AT A TRADE SHOW!
• Program:Repeat is coming!
• Program:Repeat films
• Copy Spring ‘08 at United Trade Show
• Today’s Reads

Correction: I’ve stated several times on this blog that India has 700,000 troops in Kashmir. That figure is wildly off the mark, and I apoligize. In fact, India’s entire army is only about 1 million strong. Estimates of Indian troops in Kashmir range from 250,000 to 400,000.

Somone named Pajhwok got this depressing, chaotic shot for AFP.

No one’s yet claimed responsibility for yesterday’s car bombing. That’s pretty rare, as modern terrorism is all about theatrics, future recruitment, credit, and of course death. Considering this was the single biggest bombing in Kabul (killing 41 and wounding 150) since the war on terror began, one would assume the attackers would want credit. Of course, the Afghans and Indians are blaming Pakistan’s ISI. India and Pakistan are in a forever war so maybe the ISI was indeed behind the attack. The ISI certainly maintains contacts with all the potential attackers. More likely, this was just an anti-Karzai attack carried out by an increasingly sophisticated Taliban. Afghanistan-watcher Barnett Rubin blogged the blame game in real time and it reads pretty funny (if anyone besides Hassan can follow all the competing factions I’ll buy you a beer):

I heard on the radio that “Taliban” have claimed responsibility for this act. (Also reported by Reuters.) Let’s see which “Taliban.” Did it come from the former Taliban leadership in Quetta, or did it come from the Haqqani group in North Waziristan? (Note that both command and control centers of the Taliban are in Pakistan.) The latter is campaigning for predominance — last week a document surfaced in which Jalaluddin Haqqani charged Mullah Umar and the Quetta shura with incompetence. (The authenticity of this document has yet to be established — facsimile above left from here. [UPDATE 1: A source in Kabul who has been investigating it tells me the document is mostly likely a fake. Psy-ops, I guess.]) Kabul is also focusing its accusations of terrorism on the Haqqani group, which it claims reports daily to the ISI and which has much closer links to al-Qaida and the Pakistani Taliban than does the Quetta shura.

UPDATE 2: Now I heard on NPR that the “Taliban” have denied responsibility. Let me stick my neck out here: I don’t believe that the Kandahari Taliban leadership would mount an attack like this against the Indian embassy. The idea of such an attack came from some combination of all or some of the following: the Haqqani group (as part of a campaign for Pakistani support), Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaida, and the Pakistani security agencies, or private entities under their supervision.

Reuters: The Afghan “Interior Ministry believes this attack was carried out in coordination and consultation with an active intelligence service in the region,” that is, Pakistan’s ISI.

Taliban (Quetta shura) spokesman denies responsibility:
Still, a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, denied that the militants were behind the bombing. The Taliban tend to claim responsibility for attacks that inflict heavy tolls on international or Afghan troops, and deny responsibility for attacks that primarily kill Afghan civilians.

“Whenever we do a suicide attack, we confirm it,” Mujahid said. “The Taliban did not do this one.”

Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi condemned the attack. I heard him on the BBC (I can’t find the interview on line yet), and he sounded very sincere and pained by it, almost as if the attack were aimed at his government — which it might be.

UPDATE 3: According to someone who who spent most of the 1980s with the mujahidin in Afghanistan, even then Jalaluddin Haqqani was saying that the number one enemy was India. I’ve asked a few people, and so far no one can recall hearing this kind of talk from the core Taliban in Quetta. In my experience, the Kandahari mujahidin resisted Pakistani influence quite strongly.

Also, a possible motive for yesterday’s attack that’s gone unmentioned is the pending US-India nuclear deal that’s being negotiated right now at the G8 summit in Japan. Pakistanis, Iranians, and Muslims in general hate that the US would legitimize India’s illegal nuclear program. It is bafflingly hypocritical of the US to give India a nuke package at the same time we’re going after Iran and AQ Khan.

One positive thing that could come out of this is a US-media spotlight on regional complexities (specifically Pakistan and India’s hate, best defined by the 60-year ongoing war over Kashmir) and how it ties to the West’s fight in Afghanistan. I don’t think victory in Afghanistan is possible as long as Kashmir simmers. Both Jihads (against the US in Afghan and India and Kashmir) are too intertwined. And only the US could really broker peace between India and Pakistan. Obama should make Kashmir a campaign issue.

RELATED POSTS:

• Ill Amounts Of Cabbage
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Clowntown
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

PIC AHMAD AL-RUBAYE. Iraqis still love Fitty…

The Times lead editorial today lists what the Presidential candidates should be talking about in regards to Iraq:

What support does Iraq need to ensure that provincial elections set for later this year — a crucial opportunity for disenfranchised Sunnis to play a larger role in government — and national elections in 2009 are as free and fair as possible?

What help does Iraq’s government need to resettle some two million internally displaced Iraqis and another two million who have fled to Syria and Jordan?

What can be done to promote long stalemated political reforms and encourage reconciliation? Should there be an internationally sponsored conference?

What can the United States do to try to persuade Iraq’s neighbors in Iran and Syria to promote rather than undermine Iraq’s stability and sovereignty?

Should the United States seek to keep a limited force behind for targeted counterterrorism operations or to deter genocide or aggressive outside meddling?

Would Washington have more influence — and a greater chance of enlisting help — if it completely withdrew or negotiated a slower drawdown with the Iraqis?

Missing is one big, fat question: What do Iraqis think the US owes them before leaving?

Under a just war rationale, the minimum requirement would be a functioning state that can provide its own security. We are not there yet. As Alissa Rubin reports in the Times news pages today, many Iraqis still lack electricity and water, and violence is perpetual despite the security improvements. I agree a withdrawal plan must be put in place, but the Iraqi people must be drawn into the process, whether through a referendum, a public commission, or some other democratic mechanism. Right now, the Sunnis are underrepresented in the Iraqi government and most Iraqis consider Maliki’s rule illegitimate.

A unilateral withdrawal is the same as a unilateral invasion—reckless and undemocratic. Yet anything negotiated with Maliki’s government would be considered illegitimate by the Sunnis and Sadrists. (Today Maliki even proposed his own withdrawal timetable.) Iraq’s general population must be brought into the process.

RELATED POSTS:

• Guitar Hero / Gibson Charity Art Auction at SXSW
• Program:Repeat films
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• The Explosion implodes
• Neighborhood Festival fun in LA September 9th

Citizens on patrol

Sunni vs Sunni

Two bombs killed at least 30 people today in Baghdad and Mosul respectively. And three more US troops died in combat, bringing the total to 11 since Friday, and 29 for the month. Last month saw the lowest troop death total, 19, of the war. AP:

The bombings extended a pattern of multiple-casualty attacks in recent days that are clearly intended to kill local leaders, in particular the so-called Awakening Councils of Sunni tribal chieftains who have worked with U.S forces against Sunni insurgents.

Anyone else feel like it’s Groundhog Day? It’s so fucking depressing. Every time there are modest security gains, a month passes and the violence returns. Remember in January 2008 when everyone said the war was won? Violence picked up in February and exploded in March and April. Now, as 20,000 US troops prepare to leave Iraq, power moves are being made once again. It’s been like this for too long. Unfortunately, it’s nowhere near over.

I just finished Patrick Cockburn’s excellent bio “Moqtada,” about Shia cleric Moqtada al Sadr. Right now Sadr’s Mahdi militia is under a cease-fire (like 20th of the last five years). In the context of Sadr’s family history, the Mahdi will certainly rise-up again. For almost three decades, Sadr I-III have been rallying then retreating, each time amassing more power. Most likely, their next uprising will occur between August and November, as both the US and Iraqis prepare to vote.

But today’s violence was Sunni on Sunni, making me worry that a new front may yet open. A war between the US-backed Sunni Awakening council and hard-line Sunni al Qeada would add another layer to Iraq’s multi-front cluster fuck (Sunni vs Shia, US vs Sunni, Shia vs Shia, Turkey vs Kurds, Iran vs US, US vs Shia, Iran vs Kurds). Were this to happen, it too would likely occur as the Surge ends and elections approach. 

Last week there was all this hubbub about how, with violence declining, the media was focusing on human interest stories, but nobody wanted to run them. Well, the violence is back. Where’s the media?

RELATED POSTS:

• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

For months now, Egypt has been borkering talks between Israel and Hamas, and it looks like both sides have agreed to a temporary cease-fire. This is potentially good news for both sides, as Israeli towns in the Southern part of the country might finally see some relief from daily rocket attacks, and the economic blockade of Gaza could be partially lifted. Of course, this is the Middle East, and past cease-fires haven’t held for long, so there is plenty of reason to be cautious. Israel has threatened a wide-scale incursion of Gaza if the rocket attacks don’t stop, so it’s critical that the cease-fire holds. An Israeli incursion into Gaza to wipe out Hamas would undoubtedly lead to large civilian casualties given that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth (in 2005, the UN ranked the Palestinian Territories 13th most densely populated out of 241 countries). Plus, Israel might be far more heavy-handed in Gaza than it normally would be given the debacle in Lebanon when they fought Hezbollah. The Israeli military might have something to prove after fighting Hezbollah to a stand-still, which suggests that a Gaza battle could be especially brutal.

Israel has been negotiating on three fronts recently, with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria. Some analysts are hinting that the reason for this three-pronged diplomatic push is to take the pressure off of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, who’s caught up in a campaign finance scandal, but it seems like the indirect Syria-Israel talks originally began last year, before the scandal was really out in the open, so I’m not sure if that’s correct.

Anyway, the talks with Syria, conducted through Turkey, were revealed a few weeks, and the two sides just wrapped up two days of talks in Turkey. The broad outline of any deal between the two would be the return of the Golan Heights to Syria for Syria giving up support for Hamas and Hezbollah, normalizing ties with Israel, and working out details on sharing water and outlining borders. With respect to the possible deal with Hezbollah, Israel would swap Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese man who was given four life sentences for killing four people, including a four year old girl, in an attack in 1979, for two Israeli soldiers that Hezbollah captured in 2006. 

Considering that Bush was in Israel just a few weeks ago and called Obama’s suggestion to negotiate with Cuba, Syria, and Iran similar to Chamberlin’s appeasement of Hitler, I wonder when we’ll hear from Bush on Israel’s new-found diplomatic push. Surely Israel’s decision to negotiate with two terrorist groups and a state-sponsor of terrorism is appeasement according to Bush’s logic, right? Wrong. The White House fully supports the cease-fire. It’d be nice if some reporters pressed Bush on this point.

Peace on the horizon?

RELATED POSTS:

• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Hassan Chop, South Asian-American, Socio-Economic Analyst
• Today’s Reads

Iraqi lawmakers are pissed at the US administration and decided to go public with the news that the US wants 58 “long-term” bases in Iraq, among other things, as part of a “status of forces” agreement between the US and Iraq. The Iraqis see the US demands as stripping their government of a significant amount of sovereignty. According to the Washington Post article, lawmakers close to Maliki revealed that the US had originally wanted 200 facilities in Iraq and now want the 58 bases. In addition to that, they also want to retain the authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to Iraq, immunity for US troops and private contractors, and the ability to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government. So let’s see, we get to camp out in Iraq for a long time, we get to hold and detain anyone we think is a combatant and presumably get to subject that person to a US military commission, and US troops and contractors follow US laws. Isn’t this called a state within a state?

Some people are going to say that Maliki may have been influenced by the Ayatollah Khamenei, who told Maliki during his visit to Iran that Iraq’s biggest problem was the US presence and that he shouldn’t sign any agreement. Others will suggest that the Iraqis are upset that the US is holding $50 billion in Iraqi funds hostage to pressure Iraq to sign the agreement. Those are both possible, but I think what has got Maliki and his friends so worried is looking like a bunch of pansies and puppets to the Iraqi people. What they want, what they need, is US protection. However, they don’t want to be seen as a puppet government, and that’s exactly what will happen if they sign an agreement that demands so much from them (ok, most Iraqis likely already see them as puppets). Make no mistake: Maliki is covering his ass here. Several Iraqi lawmakers in the Washington Post story suggested that if the US doesn’t back down, then they won’t sign it and will either try to get changes made to the U.N., or maybe they’ll just ask the US to leave! However, this quote by Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a senior lawmaker in the Supreme Council party, the largest Shiite party in Iraq, tells you clearly what they’re really after:

“Maybe the Iraqi government will say: ‘Hey, the security situation is better. We don’t need any more troops in Iraq,’ ” he said. “Or we could have a pledge of honor where the American troops leave but come back and protect Iraq if there is any aggression.”

That would probably be agression from al-Qaeda, Sadr, or Iran. They want US protection but they want to make it look like this agreement was done on their terms and they didn’t give up a whole lot. They’re also upset because they thought that this was already part of the deal.

U.S. negotiators also said the agreements would not obligate the American military to protect Iraq from foreign aggression, Iraqi officials said, a promise they believe was a fundamental part of a declaration of principles signed by Bush and Maliki last winter.

So, the Iraqis are threatening to kick the US out unless the US backs off several of its key demands and agrees to protect Iraq. And if the US agrees, then it gets to have long term bases AND has to protect Iraq. But don’t worry folks, this isn’t an Iraq forever policy. Right? Well, maybe there’s some upside to all of this…at least the Iraqi government is uniting on something. Oh wait, Grand Ayatollah Sistani opposes the agreement in its current form (though he did lay out 4 conditions that any agreement should follow, but they’d be very tough for the US to meet), as does Sadr.

If you don’t know about the status of forces agreement, the Bush administration claims it is “nonbinding” and doesn’t require the approval of Congress because it’s not actually a treaty. It’s true that we have 80 such agreements in countries where US troops are stationed, as the Washington Post points out, but the US is essentially committing its troops to the battle in Iraq for an unspecified amount of time and saying that the President can order this without regard for Congress. The administration is pushing this agreement because the UN mandate for having troops in Iraq expires at the end of this year, and an agreement between Iraq and the US would give the administration a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq.

RELATED POSTS:

• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

Sports and politics may be a lot of fun right now, but the world is going to shit. Oil prices made a record jump today to $138 a barrel, after Israel basically told Iran t war was “unavoidable.” NYT says:

Oil prices had their biggest gains ever on Friday, jumping nearly $11 to a new record above $138 a barrel, after a senior Israeli politician raised the specter of an attack on Iran and the dollar fell sharply against the euro. The unprecedented gains on Friday capped a second day of strong gains on energy markets, and fueled suspicions that commodities might be caught in a speculative bubble.

Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s deputy prime minister, anti-Golan Heights peace deal maker, and all around dickhead, said today via Haaretz:

“If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable,” said the former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff who later served as defense minister.

RELATED POSTS:

• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

Former NYT Baghdad reporter Dexter Filkins, whose million dollar advance book The Forever War (Knopf) comes out in Sept (and has been optioned by Tom Cruise), weighs in on Patrick Cockburn’s new bio of war criminal Moqtada al Sadr for TNR today.

The Wild Card
Dexter Filkins, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq

By Patrick Cockburn

(Scribner, 227 pp., $24)

To feel the power of Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shiite cleric and tormentor of the Americans in Iraq, all you needed to do, in the years after the invasion, was go to the Mohsin Mosque in eastern Baghdad. There, spread in the street for a half a mile, as many as fifteen thousand young men would stand assembled, prayer mats in hand, waiting for the service to begin. The scene was safe: Mahdi Army gunmen searched the cars and the supplicants for bombs. There were no American soldiers in sight. And then, as the thousands fell to their knees, an imam would exit the mosque, climb onto a raised wooden platform, and signal the beginning of prayer. As he began, the crowd started to chant.

May God speed his appearance!
May God curse his enemies!
May God make his son triumphant!
Muqtada!
Muqtada!
Muqtada!

The “his” in the first three chants referred to the Mahdi–the messiah of Shia Islam–and the last three lines established a momentous equivalence between this redeemer and Muqtada al-Sadr. But Muqtada never showed his face; he almost never does.

(more…)

RELATED POSTS:

• “Burning New York” is off the presses
• Guitar Hero / Gibson Charity Art Auction at SXSW
• Program:Repeat films
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Newborn

The Mahdi Army at work: One year of sectarian cleansing partitioned Baghdad, illustrated.

Random thoughts about war criminals…It’s common to see Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army compared to Lebanon’s Shiite militia Hezzbollah and Palestine’s Hamas. All three are quasi-political militant non-state actors who hate Israel and America and are supported by Iran. But for all the death Hezzbollah (nearly sending Lebanon back to civil war two weeks ago, the summer 2006 war with Israel that killed 1200 mostly civilians) and Hamas (intra-Palestinian civil war, suicide attacks on Israel) have wrought, neither has waged a campaign of sectarian cleansing like Sadr in Iraq. In what was arguably the most complete cleansing of this century, the Mahdi Army was the principle hands of Sunni murder in the aftermath of a 2006 shrine bombing in Samarra, Iraq, which sent millions fleeing, killed untold thousands, and effectively partitioned Baghdad. And Sadr, at some point, should be held accountable. Moqtada’s been called a lot things (ugly, thuggish, dumb, a prankster, powerful), but war criminal surpisingly isn’t one of them.

RELATED POSTS:

• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

I love you…

Warner Todd Huston is my new favorite enemy. He writes a media column for Newsbusters“combating liberal bias.” He also attacked Med Agency this week. I checked what he’s recently said about Iraq (only since March beacuse I got tired of reading) and realized he dabbles in flip-floppery and deception!!!

Outrageous: McClatchy Praises Terrorist’s ‘Charity Work’ May 9, 2008 - 14:41 ET

…Don’t you love how they give legitimacy to “Sadr City’s main humanitarian organization”? This is Muqtada al Sadr we are talking about here. He is 100% backed by one of our biggest enemies in the world, Iran.

Actually, Sadr is foremost an Iraqi nationalist. His base is largely distrustful of Iran after the Iran-Iraq war, when poor Shia were used as cannon fodder. His charity is part of the populist-nationalist brand of Shia politics Sadr practices, ala Hezzbollah. Of course, Sadr is world class murdering asshole too.

Yes, Sadr does receive funds and weapons from Iran. But saying he is 100% backed by Iran is incorrect. In fact, the Iranians publicly supported the Maliki government’s actions against Sadr’s militia in Basra, per NYT:

But the two sides [US-Iran] are making nice on the issue of fighting Mr. Sadr, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite clerics. As Iraqi government soldiers took control of the last areas of Basra from Mr. Sadr’s militia on Saturday, concluding a monthlong effort, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, took the unusual step of expressing strong support for the government’s position and described Mr. Sadr’s fighters as outlaws.

After seeing a report that Al Qaeda in Iraq has been “almost decapitated,” Huston wonders why the “MSM” would ignore such a story:

But, seeing as how al Qaeda is America’s chief concern, one would think that its decapitation in Iraq would be something that at least the news media in the U.S.A. would be highly interested in. But we’ve heard practically nothing about this good news from our media.

Wait, isn’t Iran our biggest enemy in the world? Nonetheless, more US casualties have come from Shiite militias than Sunni extremists, so technically they are our most deadly enemy in Iraq.

On March 19th Huston calls the Surge a success and says the media is ignoring good news from Iraq. The next week began one of the war’s most violent stretches, during which 600 were killed in one week across southern Iraq. A 5-week battle in Sadr City, Baghdad, also killed 1000. A truce is in place now, and Basra, Mosul, and Sadr City are all in relative peace. Iraq just had its most peaceful since March. But this will likely only hold until the end of July, when two combat brigades are removed from Iraq.

On March 3rd Huston quotes Angelina Jolie (yup) to prove the surge is working. He then writes:

That it seems to assume the possibilities that we have achieved a victory that we can now expect to exploit is a welcome breath of fresh air. It is commendatory that, instead of proclaiming that all is lost and we should tuck our tail between our legs and run home, this piece recommends that we recommit ourselves to freedom and liberty in Iraq.

There are moral questions about Iraq withdrawal that no candidate has answered. Yet to say we have “achieved victory” is a bit of a stretch. Iraq isn’t yet a functioning state and that should be our minimal clause for victory, at least under any just war rationale.

RELATED POSTS:

• Program:Repeat films
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• The Explosion implodes
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads