Typical

Yesterday the House of Representatives passed an administration-backed system of questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects. According to this WaPo article, "many congressional Democrats decided to swallow their misgivings and vote for the bill to avoid being portrayed as less than vigilant against suspects captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere." This statement portrays what is glaringly wrong with American politics and the inability of voters to thoughtfully analyze issues and the intentions of its elected officials. House Majority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) made this absurd statement: "It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country." This shameful and profoundly unthoughtful statement is typical of the partisan knee-jerk rhetoric from Congress. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) one-ups John Boehner's ignorance with this shameless ploy to politicize and invoke victims of the September 11 attacks: "Let's bring justice before the eyes of the children and widows of Sept. 11."

One fairly obvious, yet insightful in the context of the forum, from House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.): "Defending America requires us to marshal the full range of our power: diplomatic and military, economic and moral. And when our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well." The contention surrounds whether to extend the right of habeas corpus to detainees. I often hear the argument that they (the terrorists) would not extend that courtesy to U.S. troops or that we are dealing with a brutal enemy so we can forgo some policies that provide them rights. The argument is a shallow one, those rights are exactly what gives the U.S. the moral legitimacy to fight under the banner of freedom; the administration's disregard for those "rules" is what has been undermining our efforts around the world.

Amusingly, 'the legislation loosely defines "cruel or inhuman treatment" of detainees, which would constitute a war crime. The administration said the term should apply to techniques resulting in "severe" physical or mental pain, but lawmakers set the standard at "serious."' I guess they should ask the victim at the time of the "treatment" whether they feel they are under "serious" or "severe" duress.

Finally, according to the article, "for lesser offenses barred by the Geneva Conventions -- those falling between cruelty and minor abuse -- the legislation would authorize the president to interpret "the meaning and application" of relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions." How convenient...

"indiscriminate killing prohibited by international law"

John Dugard, the UN's Special rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine, comments that "standards of Human Rights in the Palestinian territories have fallen to intolerable new levels." Further, "three-quarters of Palestinians in Gaza now depended on food aid - a result, he added, of Israeli military raids, blockades and demolitions." Where do people think that food aid comes from? Certainly not any group that is sympathetic to Western ideals. Is it any wonder how militant groups such as Hamas have become the most popular organizations in the Occupied Territories. Because of the conditions described by the UN, Hamas has the leverage, what George W. Bush would refer to as political capital, to resist calls for it to recognize the state of Israel. In a poor attempt to starve them of that political capital many in the global community have cut-off aid to Hamas. Now the situation has gone from bad to worse with civil servants not receiving paychecks (the PA is the largest employer in the Gaza Strip) a lack of electricity (the American sponsored electricity plant was destroyed by Israel) and other impediments to freedom such as arbitrary checkpoint closures. Will the boycott of aid to Hamas lead to a disintegration of popular support, or will it further disenfranchise the populace into supporting even more radical organizations and inspire hatred for the United States and Israel?

From a realist perspective I do not believe that it is necessary for Hamas to recognize Israel in order to establish a Palestinian state, as long as it is willing to abide to its offer of a long term truce. If it honored this long term truce it could achieve one of its goals of a Palestinian state and hopefully all the benefits of having a National Homeland, ultimately leading through negotiations to a recognition of Israel. Hypocritically, many require this as a precondition to negotiations when the Israelis themselves have ignored many U.N. decisions, as described by Dugard, "Israel violates international law as expounded by the Security Council and the International Court of Justice and goes unpunished."

The U.S. and Israel are of course quick to decry the findings of the report. However, regardless of your opinion of the U.N., John Dugard is a well respected international observer who according to BBC earned, his reputation as a civil rights lawyer during the apartheid era in the 1980s.

It is naive to believe that as the situation in the Occupied Territories disintegrates into the worst it has ever been, that Hamas would make a concession to the very government that is responsible for it. Dugard commented: " what Israel chooses to describe as collateral damage to the civilian population is in fact indiscriminate killing prohibited by international law." Why would Hamas abandon the very tenant that gave it its mandate, resistance to the very aggression mentioned by the U.N? Since the Jewish people received a home-land, with the support of the United States, they have made remarkable strides, now its time for the Palestinian people to be given the same chance.

"Remember that the Congress represents and works for the people."

The most damning condemnation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld yet. Retired Major General John R.S. Batiste yesterday delivered this speech in front of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on the Planning & Conduct of the Iraq War. Excerpts:

I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform.

Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except "how to win." He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare.

Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension. America went to war with "his plan" and to say that he listens to his generals is disingenuous. We are fighting with his strategy. He reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war, and caused delays in the approval of troop requirements and the deployment process, which tied the hands of commanders while our troops were in contact with the enemy...Through all of this, our Congressional oversight committees were all but silent and not asking the tough questions, as was done routinely during both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Our Congress shares responsibility for what is and is not happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The detailed deliberate planning to finish the job in Iraq was not considered as Secretary Rumsfeld forbade military planners from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq. At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

I challenge the American people to get informed and speak out. Remember that the Congress represents and works for the people. Congressional oversight committees have been strangely silent for too long, and our elected officials must step up to their responsibilities or be replaced.

Ignorance

Thank you to FP Passport for bringing this to my attention. The regional covers from Newsweek. I don't think any commentary is necessary.

Muslim Outrage

I rarely agree with Charles Krauthammer, but in this WaPo editorial, he explores the absurd reaction of the Muslim World to the Pope's recent speech, the Danish cartoons, etc. It is wishful thinking to expect editors, religious and political leaders to take a stand against the tirades launched by radical Muslims. Unfortunately, geopolitical conditions within many Muslim nations make it easy for more moderate Muslims to join the demonstrations. Many have asked me why the moderate Muslims do not stand up, as if they should be expected to hold a counter demonstration every time the Fundamentalists decide to rally. I believe it is most likely because the moderate Muslims are more concerned with the their basic livelihood then to risk alienating a large part of their own community. Echoing many of the themes I have touched on in previous posts, I believe the issue boils down to the ability of fervently Islamic organizations to appeal to a disaffected and economically destitute populace. Until regimes arise (hopefully with our support as it is in our best interests) that can provide basic services (electricity, medical care, food, etc.) for their citizens I believe that we will continue to see more moderate Muslims pulled into the social safety nets offered by organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas to meet their most basic needs. Once the organizations appeal to those needs, bringing them into the radical Muslim fray can't be hard. History has repeatedly shown us that economically desperate and disaffected populations that have had their nationalist pride impugned make easy targets for extremists.

Jim Webb For Senate

The more I watch George Allen (Virginia's incumbent Senator) the more I realize how important it is that he is defeated by Jim Webb. George Allen to me embodies nearly all that is wrong with American politics: an inability to question the actions of one's political party, pandering to private industry, disingenuous posturing, and a vacuum of innovative thought. To contribute or support Jim Webb's campaign, visit his site here. In an earlier post I touch on the economics of this and most political races.

Fundamentalism

As the media and leadership harks on the growing threat of Islamism on the West, those paying attention have become growingly alarmed at the growth of Christian Fundamentalism in the United States. This video clip from ABC News on the Documentary Jesus Camp scares me as much as Islamic Fundamentalists, unfortunately it is much closer to home. What has caused the move towards religion that had waned during the end of the 20th century? It is important to realize that the benefits of a modernizing world have left behind many, causing them to feel greater isolation and detachment from civilized society. Now it seems that most intelligent observers have realized this and are shaping the broader War on Terror and extremism as a battle to counteract that trend. This is reflected in George W. Bush's speech to the General Assembly (the flaw I touched on in an earlier post) and this ironic statement from Prince Hassan of Jordan: "the populism of Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah is an alternative to civil society in the Middle East. By recruiting the poor and disenfranchised, they are closer to people's needs than governments are. Which is why they have this enormous following." So now that we have somewhat of a consensus of what the broader struggle is, who will emerge with a coherent plan to counteract the trend?

The Disconnect

George W. Bush gave a confident, clearly articulated, and I believe, excellent speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Text here. In it he correctly outlined how by extending freedom to those living under autocratic regimes one can hope to diminish the power and influence of religious fundamentalists.

Unfortunately for the world, George W. Bush's foreign policy rhetoric does not match his actions, the disconnect is profound. Although Bush's speech espouses support for liberal movements in the Middle East he continues to support regimes that alienate and suppress their populations. The issue with truly working towards the policy George W. Bush espouses in his speech is that if it were to be embraced it would most certainly result in short-term pain for the Middle East and the greater World; that course although painful in the near term, would ultimately be most beneficial in the long run. The near term pain would come from the immediate de-stabilization that would result from the United States withdrawing it support for the autocratic regimes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, to name a few in the Middle East (Kazakhstan comes to mind in Asia). And although those regimes are our "friends" they are not party of the ideology espoused by George W. Bush. Such a plan is difficult, nearly impossible, for elected officials to pursue, especially in this age of instant critique and governing by polls.

George W. Bush even called on several such regimes, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to help the Palestinian people achieve a state of their own. I do not believe that neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt can claim any legitimacy in advising others on the merits of free markets or personal freedoms. He ironically claimed that freedom cannot be imposed, I assume this epiphany came to him after the invasion of Iraq.

Once George W. Bush's actions begin to reflect his rhetoric I believe the world will begin to make progress against radical Islam and fundamentalism under any banner. Unfortunately Bush has become so entrenched in the poor execution of his ideology that it is nearly impossible for him to stop and re-direct the proverbial cruise ship of his foreign policy endeavourer. Thus I believe George W. Bush's foreign policy has not been a failure of vision, but a failure of execution.

Credibility

Taking into account the record of the Bush Administration over the past 4 years, I take little stock in any "official" news coming from its apparatus. This piece from CNN illustrates how desperately the executors of Bush's strategy, I use that term lightly, are to portray any type of progress in Iraq. Unfortunately this deliberate misrepresentation extends to not only Iraq, but also many domestic issues such as the Economy (tax cuts, employment). From the article:

"the U.S. military did not count people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks when it reported a dramatic drop in the number of murders in the Baghdad area last month, the U.S. command said Monday...The decision to include only victims of drive-by shootings and those killed by torture and execution, usually at the hands of death squads, allowed U.S. officials to argue that a security crackdown that began in the capital August 7 had more than halved the city's murder rate."

From this deliberate omission of material facts (simply: lie) one can draw parallels to other follies from the American mission in Iraq. In conversations I have had regarding Donald Rumsfeld's execution of the invasion/occupation of Iraq I have heard persons defend Rumsfeld's plan because he was using the information provided to him by his military commanders. With all due respect to the Military, Commanders can be sucked into the political machine (military career or political aspiration) in order to tailor strategies and provide intelligence that meets the goals and aspirations of their political civilian bosses. It seems that either the military commanders that compiled the data were either desperately trying to impress the American people and their civilian bosses, or were "forced" to by their civilian leadership in order to convince the American people that this Administration can do something right ahead of the November elections. Either way it appears to echo what transpired with the intelligence community leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

Now the spin machine has set its sights on Iran. I believe that any nation has a right to civilian nuclear technology, I also believe that any nation has an inherent right to military nuclear technology. However, I take a realist perspective in this situation: while Iran has the right to pursue military nuclear technology, if it does so under a unreliable and aggressive regime, other nations should seek to eliminate that ability. Currently according to public intelligence estimates, Iran is at least 8 years away from possessing the technology to create a nuclear weapon. That time buffer allows the international community time to pursue solutions to this issue beyond military ones. If the capability were measured in months rather then years I would be advocating on these pages a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. However, what we have is the usual suspects banging the war drum while creating their own dubious intelligence estimates. This is dangerous because while it undermines the credibility of this administration, it limits the ability to bring our allies to the table when the situation will necessitate real action. At this point the Administration is somewhat like the "boy who cried wolf." This report from Reuters:

IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran
By Mark HeinrichThu Sep 14, 5:51 AM ET
Reuters

U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.

The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.

Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.

The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined.

It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.

"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.

The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.

The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program since 2003. Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: "We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran. It's a matter of the integrity of the IAEA."

Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived ElBaradei to be "soft" on Tehran.

"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations." Reuters