Palestine

But what if the US had previously invaded and occupied part of Mexico, was populating that area with Americans, building American free-ways to build new cities, and slowly asphyxiating the native Mexican population with barbed wire, road-checks, and economic isolation? Wouldn't some of us support undoing the annexation and settlements rather than bombing the crap out of Mexico City in an unrelenting escalation?

Defining "the War on Terror"

From the Washington Post, an excellent piece by Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, on how defining the war is critical to establishing clear goals and ultimately a situation where America can win.

It's Our Cage Too
Thursday, May 17, 2007; Page A17

Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.

Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.

These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."

The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

Fallacious Reasoning...

In response to Richard Cohen's op-ed in today's WaPo, Why Boycott Israel, Mr. Cohen:

Thank you for devoting your life to creating a public discourse on the most important topics facing the United States and world community. I enjoy reading your opinion pieces; however, I believe your most recent piece, Why Boycott Israel?, has several forms of fallacious reasoning.

It has been said that all knowledge may be reduced to comparison and contrast. In your work you repeatedly mention examples of regimes that one could consider more morally corrupt then that of Israel, that have not received the attention of the British National Union of Journalists. That observation neither strengthens nor weakens your argument from a logical perspective; I believe that one could present an argument without resorting to the classic refuge of "we may be bad, but look at all the worse examples." The case for or against the BNUJ's boycott should be able to stand on its own merits, without comparison to other states.

Most telling, and most damaging, to your argument are the regimes you choose to mention and compare Israel to. You mention China, Russia, Cuba, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. I am sure the Israeli government would be happy to be held in such high moral company. Shouldn't we expect MORE from Israel then we would from the undemocratic governments of Jiabao, Putin, Castro, al-Bashir, and Mugabe? I believe the crux of the choice of Israel for the boycott comes from the fact that Israel IS held in much higher esteem then those governments. I am neither condoning nor condemning the boycott, however, I believe that the BNUJ has singled out Israel because it is a bastion of at least some democracy in an otherwise autocratic region, and thus expect it to extend that democracy to all those residing within its borders.

Time for a new approach in the Occupied Territories

Since Hamas was democratically elected to govern the Palestinian Authority, the Quartet has maintained that it will not engage the PA until Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist.

As a result of Hamas's refusal to meet those conditions, the Quartet imposed a financial and diplomatic boycott of the PA that resulted in the PA being unable to meet its obligations to its employees and provide basic services for its citizens. This unfairly punished the Palestinian people, creating further animosity towards the West and sparking conflict between Fatah and Hamas. The conflict ended once they agreed on a unity government during meetings in Mecca, in which it was agreed that a power-sharing agreement would take place, with many key ministerial posts being occupied by neutral persons.

The U.S. continues to re-enforce its nearly irrelevant position in the Middle Eastern peace process by sticking to the premise that Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, while at the same time condoning Israel's right to illegally occupy East Jerusalem and portions of the West Bank while building an illegal land-grab barrier. In short, the position is neatly summarized by Ahmed Amr:

"Hamas wants a state that doesn't recognize Israel and Israel wants recognition without granting the Palestinians a state...As recent events has demonstrated, the recognition of Israel by Yasser Arafat was rewarded with more illegal settlements, more collective punishment, more repression, a monstrous apartheid wall and a stubborn refusal to negotiate a reasonable peace deal. Oslo was a scam and the Road Map was conceived as a public relations campaign to cover up for the Bush administration's abandonment of the 'peace process...Those Palestinians who feel obliged to accept Israel as a concrete reality should merely be required to recognize it for what it is - a racist colonial land grabbing settler state built on the premise that the native people of the land should be evicted based on a test of faith.

It is infuriating that Israeli apologists continue to argue that a European convert to Judaism has an inherent 'right to return' to the Holy Land after two thousand years of presumed absence. And yet these very same voices insist that the Palestinian Muslims and Christians should give up on their dream to return to their native soil after only two generations of well-documented exile.

It is unreasonable to expect an occupied nation to recognize its occupiers as a pre-condition for negotiation, as I write it I am reminded of how absurd the claim is.

Today a voice of reason emerges from Russia, which has announced that, according to BBC: "Russia says it will work to lift sanctions which western governments imposed on the Palestinian Authority after Hamas won elections last year. The announcement came as Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal was visiting Moscow. Russia risked the wrath of the United States and Israel when it decided to hold talks with Hamas."

I suspect the gesture from Russia was done more to slight the U.S. then out of compassion for the Palestinian's plight, but regardless of the motive, it is a step in the right direction that was recently echoed by the Economist:

Mr. Olmert will ask how he can be expected to do any business at all with a Palestinian gov. whose dominant party denies Israel's right to exist...It is a good question. But here is a better one. What is the Alternative? Refusing to talk to the Palestinians' two-headed monster will not make Hamas go away. It has shown over the past year that it is too widely supported to be browbeaten into concessions either by sanctions or by pressure from Fatah.

The trick now is to make statehood look real enough to Palestinians for the majority to abandon Hamas's bleak vision of war to the end. When Palestinians come to believe that a generous two-state deal is really available, many may re-consider their support of Hamas...this is a better way to win the argument against Hamas than the past year's vain efforts to make the Palestinians jump through verbal hoops they have come to find humiliating.

The Bush Administration's refusal to engage with the PA is an interesting one that further highlights the administration's duplicity and hypocrisy. William Arkin, in The Problem with Pakistan, highlights how in their typically over-simplified world view of Good vs. Evil, it is odd that we continue to support General Musharraf in Pakistan. Arkin writes:

Saying that 2007 will be a "pivotal year" for Afghanistan, as well as raising concerns that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda leadership are rebuilding and that the Taliban is in resurgence, retired Vice Adm. McConnell, Director of National Intelligence for just a week, had some special words about Pakistan.

Any new attack on the United States, McConnell said, is "most likely" to emerge from Pakistan, which hosts the al Qaeda leadership and other international terrorists in the ungoverned northwest region, and which serves as the breeding ground for broader Islamic radicalism.

"Many of our most important interests intersect in Pakistan, where the Taliban and al-Qa'ida maintain critical sanctuaries," McConnell said in his written report.

Maples said that despite a September 2006 accord between Islamabad and North Waziristan tribes to curtail attacks into Afghanistan, "the tribes have not abided by most terms of the agreement," leading to increased "freedom of movement and operation" for al-Qaeda's network.

McConnell spoke of the need to eliminate the "safehaven" that the Taliban and others have found in Pakistan's tribal areas, but he also bent over backwards to explain the country's failure to bring the region under central government control: "We recognize that aggressive military action, however, has been costly for Pakistani security forces and appreciate concerns over the potential for sparking tribal rebellion and a backlash by sympathetic Islamic political parties.

So, here is the American contradiction: Al-Qaeda is the greatest threat to the United States, at least according to the U.S. intelligence community and conventional wisdom. The terrorist organization is headquartered and lodged in northwest Pakistan, where it has virtual impunity. It operates within a country that has nuclear weapons and is labeled "a major source of Islamic extremism."

And yet the United States excuses and explains away a military dictatorship for eschewing a "costly" battle that might weaken it? Isn't the very core argument of the Bush administration in Iraq that we need to accept the cost and sacrifice -- no matter what -- in the name of our future security? But Pakistan doesn't? No wonder the Bush administration's worldview is so questionable.

Credibility

On these pages I have previously commented on the lack of credibility of the current Administration and its repercussions on the ability of the United States to execute its foreign policy objectives. Most recently these have been fairly obvious: the justification for the Iraq invasion and America's lack of support for liberal political movements around the world. Following the investigation into the Douglas Feith's intelligence manipulation at the Office for Special Plans ( a dubious moniker) it is becoming alarmingly apparent that there is a serious disconnection between the broad Intelligence Community and those that formulate Policy. For those not familiar:

Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday.

Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al-Qaida connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies.

Over the past several months, anyone paying attention can not have missed the increased drum-beating over Iran, from nuclear development to most recently that the highest levels of Iranian government have been supporting Shi'ite militia in Iraq that have been killing American soldiers.

Now this:

A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

“That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”

His remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Three senior military officials in Baghdad said Sunday that the highest levels of Iranian government were responsible for arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs, blamed for the deaths of more than 170 U.S. troops

Asked Monday directly if the White House was confident that the weaponry is coming on the approval of the Iranian government, spokesman Tony Snow said, “Yes.”

In Jim Webb's rebuttal to the President's State of the Union Address, he uttered these profound thoughts:

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it

I believe that not only the President, but also Congress, has failed its citizens in that regard.

In Case of Attack

Hilarious interpretations of Homeland Security Warning Signs.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce

Thanks to the Daily Dish for bringing this to my attention.

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — 'I see no probability of the British invading us;' but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood," - Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, Feb. 15, 1848.

(Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, had written him arguing that the president as commander-in-chief possessed the right to initiate a war against Mexico without specific Congressional authorization. Photograph by Gardner, Alexander, 1821-1882, taken five days before Lincoln was assassinated.)

Conservatism

On these pages I have lamented unfortunate choice between the Democrat and Republican Party candidates. The choice has most recently been between a dangerously incapable, delusional, and fundamentalist Republican administration and a Democratic candidate that openly supports policy that goes against my political views. Recently many political commentators have been decrying the Administration's abuse of the conservative title, claiming that the Admin. does not practice what are considered traditional conservative values. Glenn Greenwald takes many of the pundits to task:

All of this brings us back to Rich Lowry and Newt Gingrich and the emerging deceit which the conservative movement is attempting to perpetrate. In contrast to the vast majority of so-called "conservatives" who loyally stood by and cheered on the Bush Presidency and the "disgraced" Republican Congress, there were a handful of conservatives who -- long before Bush's popularity collapsed -- were pointing out just how "un-conservative" the Bush movement was. Sullivan was one such person, along with people like Bruce Bartlett and Pat Buchanan and The American Conservative. And they were treated like blasphemers and pariahs by the Lowry/National Review/Gingrich/Weekly Standard conservatives, because the "Conservative Movement" became synonymous with the Bush Movement, and it therefore became impossible to repudiate the latter without being cast out of the former.

One of the principal flaws of Sullivan's book is that it speaks of "political conservatism" in a way that exists only in the abstract but never in reality. The fabled Goldwater/Reagan small-government "conservatism of doubt" which Sullivan hails -- like the purified, magnanimous form of Communism -- exists, for better or worse, only in myth.

While it is true that Bush has presided over extraordinary growth in federal spending, so did Reagan. Though Bush's deficit spending exceeds that of Reagan's, it does so only by degree, not level. The pornography-obsessed Ed Meese and the utter lawlessness of the Iran-contra scandal were merely the Reagan precursors to the Bush excesses which Sullivan finds so "anti-conservative." The Bush presidency is an extension, an outgrowth, of the roots of political conservatism in this country, not a betrayal of them.

All of the attributes which have made the Bush presidency so disastrous are not in conflict with political conservatism as it exists in reality. Those attributes -- vast expansions of federal power to implement moralistic agendas and to perpetuate political power, along with authoritarian faith in the Leader -- are not violations of "conservative principles." Those have become the defining attributes of the Conservative Movement in this country.

That is why the warnings from Sullivan and others that the Republican Party was acting in violation of "conservative principles" fell on deaf ears and even prompted such hostility -- until, that is, Bush's popularity collapsed. "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. Sullivan's principal argument that the Bush presidency never adhered to conservative principles is true enough, but the same can be said of the entire American conservative political movement. That is why they bred and elevated George Bush for six years, and suddenly "realized" that he was "not a conservative" only once political expediency required it.

Hypocrisy and Foreign Policy

Any serious observer of international politics has noticed the disconnect between the U.S. Administration's rhetoric on the support of freedom and pluralism, with its policy and benevolent treatment of autocratic regimes. The ideal has been espoused publicly by Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, then flaunted during subsequent meetings, and by financial/military support for leaders that limit the liberal movements in domestic political struggles. During Rice's last visit to Egypt, after the lofty AUC speech that I have written about on these pages, Rice stood hand in hand with the Egyptian Foreign Minister espousing the special relationship shared between the two regimes: with not a word mentioned regarding the most recent human right violations.

In last night's State of the Union Address, George W. Bush, insultingly uttered this fallacy:

To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments.

Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must.

Echoing these remarks in the 2006 State of the Union Address:

All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.

But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance. (Applause.)

America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.

As the fallacy of the Administration's motivation for invading Iraq became transparent, the Administration sought other justification for the costly endeavour: a policy of freedom and liberty, advancing those lofty American ideals around the world. As George W. Bush sought to convince lawmakers and the U.S. populace that we could change the political and social outlook of the Middle East by achieving success in Iraq (installing a pro-Western, democratically elected government); that would ultimately lead to other Middle Eastern nations realizing the benefits of democratic populism, creating a domino effect of pro-western, oil rich nations free from radicalism. A worthy goal, however, in retrospect the naivety is frightening.

The problem with using this motivator for American policy and sacrifice is that it calls for some modicum of consistency. Thus, we could not advocate the policy as a cause for continued sacrifice in Iraq while ignoring the policy in the other Middle Eastern countries. Unfortunately, the majority of U.S. allies in the Middle East are autocratic regimes that routinely limit the personal freedoms of their people, without regard for basic human rights. This presents an interesting dilemma for the Administration; not surprisingly it seems they have chosen to simply ignore the obvious hypocrisy. So while President Bush and Condoleeza Rice go on about the U.S. interest in supporting liberal movements, they simply ignore them and their tragic plight in every country besides Iraq and Iran.

I am not ignorant to realist foreign policy, that by supporting these regimes the U.S. supports stability rather then allowing what happened in Palestine through democratic elections, the election of a group openly hostile to the United States and its allies. That is a logical foreign policy argument, not one that i agree with, but logically sound regardless. The danger comes when America, and its President's words, become meaningless. When the American people and its soldiers cannot trust the motivations of its leaders, when the repressed people of the world on the cusp of revolt do not believe the strongest country in the world will live up to its word and support them. By hanging these friends out to dry we risk alienating the only progressive movements in the region, possibly pushing these moderates to the extreme left, resulting in a two ideology environment: radicals on the far left and fundamentalists on the far right, both somehow disillusioned by the hollow words of the United States.

We Reap What We Sow

Egypt had been out of the headlines until this piece Rice Speaks Softly in the Egypt, Avoiding Democracy, in the New York Times, that explores the contradictions and dangers of US policy in Egypt. Several excerpts:

Ms. Rice, who once lectured Egyptians on the need to respect the rule of law, did not address those domestic concerns. Instead, with Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit by her side, she talked about her appreciation for Egypt’s support in the region.

It was clear that the United States — facing chaos in Iraq, rising Iranian influence and the destabilizing Israeli-Palestinian conflict — had decided that stability, not democracy, was its priority, Egyptian political commentators, political aides and human rights advocates said.

At the same time, where Washington was criticized in the past for supporting repressive governments, it risks even sharper criticism now because it made such a public commitment to promoting democracy.

Ms. Rice raised the bar herself when she visited American University here in 2005 and said in a speech: “We are all concerned for the future of Egypt’s reforms when peaceful supporters of democracy — men and women — are not free from violence. The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees — and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice.”

Since then, Egypt’s government has piled up a long list of repressive actions, including ordering the police to block people from voting in parliamentary elections; delaying local elections by two years; imprisoning an opposition leader, Ayman Nour, on charges widely seen as politically motivated; battling with judges who have demanded oversight of elections; and imprisoning Talaat el-Sadat, a member of Parliament and the nephew of President Anwar el-Sadat, for a year in a military jail after he criticized the armed forces on television.

U.S. support for the despotic regime of Hosni Mubarak has long-served U.S. purposes: stability and secularism, at the expense of the liberties of the Egyptian people. In Rice's above mentioned speech at AUC, echoing the empty rhetoric of George W. Bush's second inaugural address, she lead liberal Egyptians to believe that the United States would recognize and support the groups that aimed to liberalize Egyptian society and politics. Mubarak was savy enough to placate his American benefactors by seemingly loosening the restrictions on political parties and candidates outside of his own party, the ironically named National Democratic Party. Once the elections actually took place he brutally suppressed the ability of any other candidates to mount a serious campaign, ultimately, the most liberal candidates would end up in Egyptian prisons on trumped up charges.

Not surprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood was the true benefactor of the supposed liberalization. Running under the banner of Independent candidacy, the Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned as a political party, the group made major gains in most regions and would have probably surpassed the NDP had it not been for wide scale voter intimidation and ballot rigging. Mubarak is unable to reign in the Islamic party in the same way that he is able to suppress the liberal candidates because of the popular strength of political Islam. It is ironic that Mubarak's dictatorship is partly to blame for the popularity of political Islam, although it is certainly become a regional trend, the only way for Egyptians to express any opinion outside of those in direct support of Mubarak is through the Mosque. That said, Mubarak and the state security services have also been ruthless in their suppression of Islamists, from time to time, particularly after terrorist attacks, rounding up hundreds of supposed Islamic militants and tossing them in jail. In spite of this, the regime's tolerance, for what in Egypt can be considered moderate political Islam, has allowed the ideas to flourish. I doubt that even with his overwhelming security apparatus Mubarak could suppress or jail the moderate (again by Egyptian standard) Islamic clerics without widespread public discontent.

When will America realize that over the long term it is subversive to US interests to support autocratic regimes in the interest of stability, over liberal movements within a country. Unfortunately many of the liberal candidates and supporters felt empowered by Rice's initial comments and thus tried to enter the public political fray, exposing themselves to Mubarak's security services. They learned the hard lesson not to take the United States at its word and we further empowered the regime. Interesting times are ahead once Mubarak dies or passes on the Presidency; are the people so crushed that they would simply accept it if Mubarak cedes power to his son Gamal, would the U.S. oppose?

The "Surge" cont...

From Fred Kagan of the AEI, the architect of the mis-labeled "surge" policy, in a December policy piece. From The Belgravia Dispatch (his highlights):

Clearing and holding the Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in the center of Baghdad, which are the keys to getting the overall levels of violence down, will require around nine American combat brigades (27 battalions, in partnership with Iraqi forces, divided among some 23 districts). Since there are about five brigades in Baghdad now, achieving this level would require a surge of at least four additional combat brigades--some 20,000 combat troops. Moreover, it would be foolhardy to send precisely as many troops as we think we need. Sound planning requires a reserve of at least one brigade (5,000 soldiers) to respond to unexpected developments. The insurgents have bases beyond Baghdad, especially in Anbar province. Securing Baghdad requires addressing these bases--a task that would necessitate at least two more Marine regiments (around 7,000 Marines). It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.

You can read Kagan's complete Choosing Victory piece here in PDF format. As I previously posted, although I support the idea of sending additional troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad, I do not think 20,000 is sufficient, but faced with the alternative of withdrawal, I support it.

Iraq, "The Way Forward"

Following George W. Bush's speech on Iraq, Andrew Sullivan has the following response. I agree with nearly all of it (my bolds).

The premise of the speech, and of the strategy, is that there is a national democratic government in Baghdad, defending itself against Jihadist attacks. The task, in the president's mind, is therefore to send more troops to defend such a government. But the reality facing us each day is a starkly different one from the scenario assumed by the president. The government of which Bush speaks, to put it bluntly, does not exist. The reality illumined by the lynching of Saddam is that the Maliki government is a front for Shiite factions and dependent for its future on Shiite death squads. U.S. support for the government is not, therefore, a defense of democracy in a unified country, whatever our intentions. It is putting the lives of American soldiers in defense of the Shiite side in an increasingly brutal civil war.

What we will discover in the next few months, therefore, is simply whether the entire premise of this strategy is actually true. The president is asking us to find this out one more time. He seems to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence on the ground - that the dynamic has changed beyond recognition. His intellectual rubric - democracy versus terror - has not changed to deal with fast-changing events, or to take account of the sectarian dynamic that his appallingly managed occupation has spawned. And so his strategy is no surprise. It would have made sense in 2004, when so many of us were begging for more troops, only to be dismissed as fair-weather warriors, terror-supporters, or lily-livered wimps. We were right. This president was disastrously wrong - and clung to his disproved strategy in the face of overwhelming evidence, supported by the Republican right regardless, until it simply became impossible to sustain the lie any longer.

If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to grapple with this new situation - a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a game-changer - then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose.

As I, and the majority of the readers of this blog are not political insiders with the ability to influence policy in any meaningful manner, we are left to choose between two strategies for Iraq: George W. Bush's call for an increase of approx. 20,000 US troops or a phased withdrawal. Although I was a fervent opponent of the war, I now believe that we cannot simply withdraw, and the only way to succeed is to increase the amount of ground forces.

The right strategy, the wrong tactics

In a previous post I advocated sending more troops into Iraq. On the surface this seems to coincide with President Bush's plan, however, I do not have confidence in the ability of this administration to effectively carry out the strategy. To begin, the best estimates of competent military commanders, including General Petraeus, is that to occupy an area effectively, an army requires a presence of approximately 20 troops per 1,000 persons. Baghdad has a population of about 6 million people, so to clear, hold, and rebuild would require roughly 120,000 soldiers-right now the US has 70,000 combat troops in Iraq, adding 20,000 would still be much less then is thought to be required. The new plan has a similar stink to many of the failed policies of the past four years: overoptimism, poor-planning, and an inability to consider alternatives.

Here, James Fallows comments:

The proposition that Iraq can be “fixed” by an increase in troop numbers that is (a) modest enough not to require a huge re-mobilization and reconfiguration of U.S. deployments around the world, and (b) brief enough to count as a “surge” rather than an “escalation” or “re-invasion,” is fantasy.

Fallows goes on to reference this piece, entitled Stalingrad on the Tigris, by Retired Colonel Patrick Lang. Referencing Kagan's AEI piece that advocates a "surge":

The paper urges a "surge" of many thousands more US troops into Baghdad beginning in March, 2007 for one more grand roll of the iron dice. The concept seems to be based on the notion that Shia militias exist because of Sunni violence against them rather than as expressions of a Shia drive to political dominance in Iraq. Based on that belief the authors seem to believe that if the additional US and Iraqi forces to be employed in the Capital area defeat (destroy?) the Sunni insurgent groups, then the Shia militia armies will "wither away" from a lack of need. I do not think that belief is justified.

The crucial question is whether to abandon the strategy of an increase in troop levels altogether for the lack of confidence in the execution abilities of this administration, or to accept the "surge" with all its flaws. I'll reserve opinion until Bush makes his speech tomorrow.

Middle East Policy

On these pages I have yet to opine on a comprehensive Middle East strategy, there has been so much said and printed that I have taken my time and was hoping to stay on the sidelines until several realistic options had emerged.

Now that the Iraq Study Group's report has been released, and the Administration has proposed its own strategy, I feel that I can form an opinion. From the beginning, the ISG had the feeling of being another fruitless attempt to create consensus by bringing together a group of individuals with enough moral gravitas to be beyond reproach. Unfortunately the consensus, as is often the case with compromise, took a little piece from a multiple of different strategies and tried to create one all encompassing document. Unfortunately, this assortment of different initiatives I do not believe forms a coherent Middle East Policy, and many of the recommendations I believe are dangerously misguided. One problem I believe that a comprehensive coherent Middle East Policy is a fallacy. The overarching weakness and failure of this administration has been to chronically oversimplify, specifically when attempting to lump the many religious, tribal, geographical, and political woes of the Middle East into one policy. Of course they have similarities, they may even have some underpinnings of correlation, however, there is not one solution, and solving one issue will most likely create new issues elsewhere. Thus I cannot try to propose a Middle East Policy, but perhaps a different strategy for each conflict. Today I will try to tackle Iraq.

Seemingly, for the first time since the George W. Bush backed the Dubai Ports deal, I am in agreement with the President: we cannot abandon Iraq now that we have destabilized it religiously, politically, and tribally. To grossly oversimplify: you break, you buy. Among several blunders that have been characterized time and time again, by wiser men then I, I believe we attempted to occupy Iraq with a force much lighter then was required, attempting to "search and destroy" rather then "clean and hold." We would search for armed bands, clear the area and move on, unfortunately, right after we left the insurgents would simply fill the void. The United States not only has a moral obligation to the Iraqi (Middle Eastern) people, but has an obligation to its own citizens not to leave a failed state in the middle of the most tumultuous region in the World, that may or may-not descend into a safe-haven for terrorism. I of course, do not know what would happen if the U.S. were to pull-out from Iraq, but I believe it would be a gross miscalculation.

Many have opined that by the United States leaving it would not give the Iraqis a reason to fight. This is misguided, the glue holding the Iraqi "nation" together was Saddam Hussein, once that was removed, the void was filled with the chaos that had enveloped the peoples of Mesopotamia every time a void was created: ethnic, religious, and tribal war. Many have opined that the time has come for the Iraqis to help themselves, that we have done all we have done for them; a feeble attempt to pass the blame. Regardless of what the greater majority of reasonable Iraqis want, they do not have the ability to quell the violent actions of the religious and political factions. By inserting more troops into Iraq we can first provide security for the Iraqis: without security and basic human requirements (electricity, shelter, water) we cannot expect them to build the robust institutions that a representative democracy requires. Key to this strategy is the argument of whether the "Nation" of Iraq exists at all, can it ever exist under any means other then brutal oppression? Perhaps not, but any fragmentation of the nation into separate states should take place not under duress, but under a secure political environment, which I believe cannot exist without more U.S. troops.

Central to its broader Middle East strategy, the ISG has decided that solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue would relive some of the animosity that the Arab world has against the United States. I believe that it is an important issue, that deserves the resources of the United States, however, I do not believe that a solution to the crisis could be achieved in time to help the Iraqi Civil War nor would it help end the war if it were solved. Therefore, as it may be part of a broader Middle East strategy, I do not think that it would help solve the Iraqi Civil War and thus will write on the conflict at a later time.

We must deploy more troops to Iraq in order to increase the security situation for Iraqis. Once there is relative peace and basic human necessities we can begin to focus on building the institutions necessary for democracy. We must engage Iran and Syria, although they may have a short term interest in seeing America bogged down in Iraq, they only do so because they see it as a deterrent to any potential American military attacks against their own countries. If they were of the belief that America did not have that intention a priori, I believe it would be in their best interest to help stabilize Iraq and at least negotiate in good faith.

The Case for Withdrawal

One of the many I have read, this one from Sic Semper Tyrannis, I agree with several of the numbered points in one form or another. The points do not address what would be the "on-the-ground" in Iraq situation if we were to withdrawal besides the regional hegemony of Iran; I believe that that issue is the crux of the argument. All the bullet points may or may not come to pass, but the Void is what matters.

Then of course we have the Israeli Likudnik plan - which is to provide the demonic enemy with which the NeoCons have conjured with. If one listens to them one would think that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, the Taliban, Al Qaeeda, the muslim brotherhood, and the rest of these organisations are part of the evil Islam Inc. which is plotting to take over the known universe, controlled by a group of bearded and bejwelled fiends living in a cave high in the mountains of Iran, even now plotting the destruction of Peoria or some place.

If America backs out of the middle east leaving Iran intact, the following will happen:

1. Iran is now the recognised regional power in the Middle East and will have a very large say in dictating what happens to the remains of Iraq.

2. Israel will be faced with the need to make some form of accomodation (sic) with the Islamic powers in the region.

3. Successive Congresses will bind the President and the military industrial complex hand and foot to prevent a repeat of this folly.

4. Right wing thinktanks and their associated pundits will be discredited.

5. Congress will have to reform taxation to pay for the war (remember when Iraqi Oil revenue was supposed to cover the cost of all this?)

6. A decade of soul searching and reform about the electoral system, the media, campaign finance, lobbying and similar issues will occur - sharply reducing the powers of the current ruling class to manipulate Americans so easily.

Point 6 seems a bit idealistic, inspite of the recent Democratic victory, I have no doubt that the general populace is either too disaffected or unintterested to take any step so dramatic.

Al Jazeera

I think that Al Jazeera has been a positive development for the Middle East, it is the first instance of professional TV journalism that any Middle Easterner's have ever witnessed. Many persons have derided the news network for anti-American/Western commentary, however, there is an important distinction to be made: any "opinion" segments are done outside the regular news commentary. Similar to Fox News shows such as Bill O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes, the Al Jazeera network has its own opinion programming, it does not compromise the quality of the actual news broadcasts. It does reveal the attitudes of the majority of that viewers that the channel caters to, but no more then the attitudes and attempts of Fox News or CNN.

This is a clever satire of American MSM by the Daily Show that takes place within Al Jazeera studio, if nothing else, at least the clip reveals that those at Al Jazeera are not the self important blowhards of Fox News or CNN.

Healthcare

A convincing arguement for universal healthcare in the United States by Ezra Klein in the LA Times. I am against frivolous government spending, but do believe that Universal Healthcare for all Americans is a worthy and attainable goal of the government.

Absurd News

Browsing through BBCNews.com this morning I was a bit surprised at the amount of "comedy" news; many of these stories seem pulled directly from the pages of the Onion. Enjoy:

From the piece on the of the President of Turkmenistan:

According to Turkmen law, the president is succeeded by the head of the legislative body, the People's Assembly. But this post was held by Mr Niyazov himself.

"President Niyazov was in effect the state and what he decreed on any subject, from politics, to culture to science, was absolute law," says Michael Hall, Central Asia project director for the International Crisis Group."President Niyazov was in effect the state and what he decreed on any subject, from politics, to culture to science, was absolute law," says Michael Hall, Central Asia project director for the International Crisis Group.

"President Niyazov was in effect the state and what he decreed on any subject, from politics, to culture to science, was absolute law," says Michael Hall, Central Asia project director for the International Crisis Group.

He renamed months and days in the calendar after himself and his family, and ordered statues of himself to be erected throughout the desert nation. Cities, an airport and a meteorite were given his name.

The next story to catch my eye was, 'Karaoke Boost' for N. Korean Troops, highlights:

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is reported to have found a rousing way of boosting morale among his troops - by giving them karaoke machines.

He said karaoke sessions eased tensions in the ranks, but also encouraged competitiveness, state media reported.

And he also noted that soldiers and officers competed with each other to get the highest scores, the newspaper reported.

Kim keeps track of the number of karaoke machines sent out to each troop division by writing it down in a notebook, according to the Rodong Sinmun.

I was next shocked to learn that there is now a Pyjama Ban for UAE Civil Servants:

The head of the emirate's personnel department was quoted as saying that large numbers of civil servants were wearing sleeping clothes and pyjamas.

Starting on 1 January 2007, civil servants in the emirate will have to wear national dress - a long white robe for men and the black abaya for women.

Finally, the BBC elucidates on the Paris Syndrome in: Paris Syndrome strikes Japanese:

A dozen or so Japanese tourists a year have to be repatriated from the French capital, after falling prey to what's become known as "Paris syndrome".

That is what some polite Japanese tourists suffer when they discover that Parisians can be rude or the city does not meet their expectations.

The experience can apparently be too stressful for some and they suffer a psychiatric breakdown.

The Japanese embassy has a 24-hour hotline for those suffering from severe culture shock, and can help find hospital treatment for anyone in need.

However, the only permanent cure is to go back to Japan - never to return to Paris.

The President and The People

In the New York Times' Sunday Magazine, Christopher Caldwell of the Weekly Standard, comments on the personality of Presidents, how it shapes policy and reflects the zeitgeist of Americans. He makes an astute characterization of Bill Clinton:

"Clinton practiced leadership as it is taught by management consultants and assorted gurus. “Leadership,” in this sense, is the pseudoscience of listening to employees or customers or voters and giving them back a mirror image of themselves. It is, as the historian James MacGregor Burns puts it, a “dynamic, participatory, mutually empowering relation between leaders and followers,” and those roles are easily confused. It was possible to love Clinton’s charm in the belief that it was somehow ours. When he fell into a sex scandal, of course, voters felt betrayed. But they weren’t really betrayed. What they were was embarrassed."

Describing George W. Bush, he reflects:

"Why are opinions so personal when it comes to President Bush? Because he has frequently sought, like the child of the 1960s that he is, to blur the line between the personal and the political. Posing as an amiable guy rather than a partisan politician has great advantages in democratic power politics. Even if not all of them vote for you, most Americans want to believe that their president is a jolly good fellow. But when a politician makes likability a substitute for authority, his opponents make hatred a substitute for opposition."

Bush made his election as much about who he was, as what he believed: ultimately the two were the same. Of course we hope that our leaders "believe" in their policies, it gives them a candor and genuineness that appeals to nearly all. However, we also hope that those leaders are able to "detach" themselves from important issues when necessary, to approach decisions with a critical eye in order to best evaluate complex and dynamic problems: in that, George W. Bush failed The People.

"rarely discussed but universally understood"

In David Ignatius's WaPo Op-ed piece, "Siniora Stands Fast", he makes an interesting point that is not often spoken in Western Media regarding the Lebanese political situation.

"The hard edge of Siniora's strategy, hidden behind his lawyerly calm, is that he is prepared to play the sectarian game, too. An ominous sign of the dangers ahead was a huge counter-rally Sunday in support of the government by angry Sunnis in the northern city of Tripoli. "They don't have the numbers," Siniora said of the Hezbollah-Aoun alliance. "The majority can send to the street more than what the opposition can send."

The Sunni trump card is rarely discussed but universally understood: Syria, a crucial ally of Hezbollah, is an overwhelmingly Sunni country. If the Syrian-Iranian alliance squeezes the Sunnis in Lebanon too hard, there is likely to be a backlash inside Syria. Here's the way Siniora delicately phrased it to me: 'The Syrian position is what it is. It has to be part of the Arab world, not the Iranian overall plans in the region.'"

This is an aspect that is not often spoken in American MSM because the administration typically tends to oversimplify complex issues; Lebanon, like the broader Middle East must be analyzed in the cultural context of tribes, sects, ethnicity, religion, and politics. Syria and Iran do not have an absolute alliance, their interests most often do not converge, and when they do, it is only up to a certain point. Once again, to lump nations into an Axis of Evil is a dangerous oversimplification.

The Real National Security Threat

In David Ignatius's WaPo op-ed, "Baker-Hamilton Does Its Job", Ignatius insightfully comments:

"The Iraq Study Group's report achieved the goal of any blue-ribbon commission: It stated the obvious, emphatically."

He goes on to praise the report, but concludes:

"The level of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East these days is genuinely frightening. It has become the organizing principle of political life, even in once-friendly countries such as Lebanon. This is the real national security threat to America -- this sense in the rest of the world that Iraq symbolizes America's fatal new combination of arrogance and incompetence."

Jim Webb

This morning Richard Cohen of the Washington Post commented on this now famous exchange between Jim Webb and George W. Bush:

"After first trying to avoid speaking to George W. Bush altogether, he was forced to respond when the president approached him and asked, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." (Webb's son is a Marine serving there.) "That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?""That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said, ending the conversation right there."

I agree with Richard Cohen when he writes, " am of two minds about what Virginia Sen.-elect James Webb did at a White House reception for new members of Congress...it might have jarred Bush into appreciating the fact that many of his critics actually feel keenly about the war in Iraq -- that they are not mere political opponents but people who are morally appalled by a war that continues for no apparent reason."

On these pages I have complained about the good ol' boy, do-nothing environment, in the halls of the Capitol, and I do appreciate the arguement that civility has a place in politics. I think Webb's comments conveyed the message that those in government are not just priveleged observers of the machinations of legislative edict: while remaining respectful, it is ok to vent frustration and show emotion when dealing with matters as personal and serious as war. I have often commented on the unserious attitude of George W. Bush...though contrary to some popular opinion, George W. Bush is not emotionally detached nor unintelligent, I am sure he understood the emotions behind Webb's retort. Ultimately, with sincere emotion and a personal stake, I believe Webb's response was a fair one, that said, so was Bush's.

Complications

Until now it seems that Saudi Arabia, publicly at least, has stayed on the sidelines of the Iraq War. As a result of the support that Shiite groups receive from Iran, Sunni Saudi Arabia has given serious consideration to aiding the Sunni elements of the Iraqi Civil War, particularly if the United States were to withdraw. In this fascinating piece of opinion from Nawaf Obaid, a personal national security advisor to Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Turki al-Faisal, he hypothesizes several courses of action that Saudi Arabia may take in order to protect the Sunnis of Iraq. On certain topics he goes beyond hypothesizing, stating: "Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

Surprisingly he even supposes that: "finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere." That seems an unlikely course of action but is an interesting idea. Do the opinions expressed in the piece actually have to be considered viable options by the Saud clan, or simply have to appear to be viable options. The opinions will surely come across the desks of the Iranian decision makers and maybe simply an attempt by the so-far quite Saudis to exercise some regional muscle. Interestingly the piece comes following a stop in Saudi Arabia by Dick Cheney. Could this simply be part of the Administrations plan to engage other regional players in the Iraq crisis, albeit in a rather unconventional way. The piece certainly strikes a belligerent tone, it will be interesting to watch what may come of this.

Bob Gates

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for bringing this to my attention:

"I sat in the Situation Room in secret meetings for nearly twenty years under five Presidents, and all I can say is that some awfully crazy schemes might well have been approved had everyone present not known and expected hard questions, debate, and criticism from the Hill. And when, on a few occasions, Congress was kept in the dark, and such schemes did proceed, it was nearly always to the lasting regret of the Presidents involved. Working with the Congress was never easy for Presidents, but then, under the Constitution, it wasn't supposed to be. I saw too many in the White House forget that," - Bob Gates, from his 1996 memoir, "From the Shadows."

Darfur

Between April and July of 1994 an estimated 800,000 to 1,070,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred in Rwanda by extremist Hutu groups. Despite intelligence of the impending disaster before the killing began, and international news media coverage of the violence, most of the international community including France, Belgium, Germany, the U.K., and the United States declined to intervene. Bill Clinton characterized his inaction as the "biggest regret of my administration."

The Rwandan conflict was not only committed by non-state actors, there is ample evidence that the killing was well organized, by the time the killing started, the militia in Rwanda was 30,000 strong, some militia members were able to acquire guns by completing requisition forms. According to Linda Melvern, in Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwanda Genocide and the International Community, convicted war criminal Rwandan Prime Minister Kambanda, revealed in his testimony before the ICTR, that the genocide was openly discussed in cabinet meetings and that "one cabinet minister said she was personally in favor of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi, she told ministers, all of Rwanda's problems would be over."

The United Nations has shown itself to be ineffectual in dealing with international/intranational conflict resolution. The United States should use its power to build consensus and bring parties into a coalition to stop genocide such as occurred in Rwanda. Unfortunately Bill Clinton's administration and Congress was reeling from the failure of its mission in Somalia that had occurred only months earlier in late 1993. The failures of that endeavor, however worthy it may have been, distracted the administration, congress, and the people of the United States from intervening in Rwanda.

Now we have a similar situation in Darfur. The United Nations is still ineffectual and unable to intervene in Darfur, the United States is reeling from the failure of its mission in Iraq and other countries who are in a position to take a leadership role will not without direction, financially and physically, from the United States. Estimated deaths in Darfur range from 50,000 to 400,000, with consensus hovering around the latter number. Once again, the Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, has provided arms and assistance and has participated in joint attacks with the Janjaweed. The United States has declared that genocide has taken place, but the United Nations continues not to do so.

Now from the United Nations, comes this call from Kofi Annan, "a high-level international meeting later this week to discuss the peacekeeping crisis in Sudan's Darfur...The UN has offered $77m to help the AU - but needs Sudan's approval to change the structure of the force...The UN Security Council has passed a resolution for 20,000 troops to be sent to Darfur but Sudan has refused to let the UN take control, saying that would infringe its sovereignty."

A nation loses its right to sovereignty once it cannot provide basic security for its citizens, and certainly relinquishes any claim to sovereignty once it supports groups that engage in ethnic cleansing within its borders. Not intervening in Sudan because of its governments claim to sovereignty is a farce. I do not presume to know the ability of the United States military, but it seems that the quagmire of Iraq and the development of a plan to rectify the situation drains all available resources, military and civilian. The misadventure, and the fact that it does not appear to be ending in the near-future, mean that most likely nothing will be done for Darfur unless another country takes the lead.

Kerry's Remarks

Uwe Reinhardt of the Washington Post makes several interesting comments regarding the ill-timed and ill-delivered joke made by John Kerry regarding those in the U.S. military.

Online Gambling

On October 6, the George W. Bush signed into law the Safe Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 which created funding for several port related anti-smuggling/terror measures. The bill I believe is a sound one, however, similar to the way "pork-barrel" spending is snuck into other bills; the bill included a provision to prohibit Internet gambling by outlawing financial transfers to overseas casinos. Presumably the provision appeals to several groups; the Christian Right is certainly pleased by federally imposed limits on what they consider vice, while others legitimately believe it is a way to restrict money laundering.

I am against most federally legislated restrictions on individual liberties, particularly when issues of morality are imposed by government. I do appreciate the money-laundering argument. However, I do not think that blocking online gambling is necessary to achieve that end. Once the law was passed the London-traded gaming companies' equity lost approx. 50% of their market values as traders believed that it would severely limit the ability of these companies to grow earnings considering their largest markets were in the U.S. Surely these companies would have happily worked with U.S. regulators in order to create transparency in their cash flows and even acquiesce to taxing gains rather then losing that business altogether.

Further, the legislation seems to be a blatant violation of WTO rules, as brought to my attention by this blogger, he explains, "the WTO allows a country to ban some goods and services within its borders (Muslim countries with alcohol, for example), but you can't ban a good or service from another country while allowing it to be sold from domestic providers. That's sort of the whole point of "free trade." The gambling ban does exactly that."

Metamorphosis

As the Republican party becomes more and more theological, and the current Republican administration pays lip-service to the historically conservative ideals of fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and small government, many Republicans have found themselves outside of the main-stream Republican Party. In fact, numerous pundits and authors have been harping on this very subject for some time. It has now become apparent that many Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the current Administration. For evidence of the split one can need not look further then the current mid-term campaign as many Republican incumbents and hopefuls shun the President's stumping. As one of the classical liberals now on the outside, it makes sense to wonder what has caused the division, and what in those causes can help us create a viable solution.

I have often lamented this very issue, commenting on these pages how persons who cannot identify with the shift the Republican Party has taken, have very few, if any, options when it comes to selecting public officials. The Republican Party astutely noticed the shift in the United States towards Christian Conservatism and early on aligned itself with that movement, taking away the Democrat's natural tie to Christian ideals. Many conservatives now consider the Republican Party not to represent their ideals and politics, commenting that the party has been somehow hijacked either by the religious right or by those savvy enough to realize that demographics were in favor of the shift. Either way us classical liberals (Conservatives) could fall back on our belief that we are not willing to compromise our core beliefs in order to win the popularity contest that is modern politics.

The argument raises a philosophical debate: at what point does the zeitgeist of the Republican Party replace the history of the Conservative movement? How long does the Republican Party have to remain in the grip of the Religious Right before that ideal becomes the most defining characteristic of its members? At what point do Classical Liberals as myself simply relinquish our claim to the title of Conservatism? Those on the other side of the argument would surely respond that parties and movements evolve, and that if you are not part of the modern evolution of the Republican Party then you are simply not a Republican at all. Perhaps from ego, or perhaps from my disgust of what the movement has become, I prefer to fight the battle, but in the interest of the movement itself, when is it smart to split?

The fact that recently several Republican campaigners have shunned the President provides me little solace, as the split is for all the wrong reasons. Those who shunned George Bush on the campaign trail are not doing so out of a difference of ideals, they are doing so out of a difference of popularity; they maybe (I am doubtful) acting out of a belief that the administration has flawed execution, but even if that were to be true it would not signal a rally against the ideological shift of the Republican Party.

Chemical Weapons Found in Middle East

According to the the AP, "the Israeli army used phosphorous artillery shells against Hezbollah guerrilla targets during their war in Lebanon this summer, an Israeli Cabinet minister said Sunday, confirming Lebanese allegations for the first time. Until now, Israel had said it only used the weapons — which cause severe chemical burns — to mark targets or territory, according to Israeli media reports. The Geneva Conventions ban using white phosphorous against civilians or civilian areas and Israel said the weapons were used solely against military targets. Cabinet Minister Yaakov Edri said Israel used the weapons before an Aug. 14 cease-fire went into effect, ending its 34-day war against Hezbollah. Edri’s spokeswoman Orly Yehezkel said he was speaking on behalf of Defense Minister Amir Peretz. Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli military said in July its use of weapons “conforms with international law” and it investigates claims of violations based on the information provided."

Further, regarding the use of cluster bombs, "Israel has been accused of firing as many as 4 million cluster bombs into Lebanon during the war, especially in the last hours before the cease-fire. U.N. demining experts say up to 1 million cluster bombs failed to explode immediately and continue to threaten civilians. On Sunday, a cluster bomb exploded in a southern Lebanese village, killing a 12-year-old boy and wounding his younger brother, security officials said. At least 21 people have been killed and more than 100 wounded by cluster bombs since the end of the war, the U.N. Mine Action Center said."

The Israeli government flaunts international treaties and conventions, regarding territorial occupations, the right to free movement, the use of chemical weapons, killing civilians, etc. Ironically, the AP report finishes with this statement, "Hezbollah, meanwhile, has been criticized for failing to distinguish between Israeli civilian and military targets. Human Rights Watch also said the militant group fired cluster bombs into civilian areas of northern Israel during the fighting." Are we supposed to hold Hezbollah to the same standard as the Israeli government? I think the comparison is absurd.

The duplicity of the Israeli government is without comparison. The Cunning Realist blog brought this exchange between Paula Zahn of CNN and Mark Regev, of the Israeli Foreign Ministry to my attention:

ZAHN: The Lebanese health minister today accused Israel of putting phosphorous in its bombs, which causes extreme burns upon impact. And we are going to show our audience now a picture of a severely burned child at a hospital in Tyre.

Is Israel using phosphorous in any of its weapons?

REGEV: Unfortunately, Paula, you have this sort of atrocity propaganda. It comes up especially in Arab media. We have had all sorts of stories of Israelis giving, deliberately, out bird flu, Israelis giving out AIDS deliberately to Palestinian children, Israelis...

ZAHN: But what about this particular...

REGEV: ... using depleted uranium.

ZAHN: ... charge? Are you using...

REGEV: Well...

ZAHN: ... phosphorous or not?

REGEV: ... I'm telling you, this particular charge -- this particular charge is simply not true.