Obama and Israel

As I get older, the more I wonder where our national interests diverge from Israel's interests and when Israel's interests counter our own. Israel Cries Wolf from The New York Times only strengthens my doubts.

"What’s critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu’s fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran, as he did Wednesday by saying America would join nuclear talks for the first time. The president should read Trita Parsi’s excellent “Treacherous Alliance” as preparation.

The core strategic shift of Obama’s presidency has been away from the with-us-or-against-us rhetoric of the war on terror toward a rapprochement with the Muslim world as the basis for isolating terrorists.

That’s unsustainable if America or Israel find themselves at war with Muslim Persians as well as Muslim Arabs, and if Netanyahu’s intense-eyed attempt to suck America into a perpetuation of war-on-terror thinking prevails.

The only way to stop Iran going nuclear, and encourage reform of a repressive regime, is to get to the negotiating table. There’s time. Those “months” are still a couple of years. What Iran has accumulated is low-enriched uranium. You need highly-enriched uranium for a bomb. That’s a leap."

Does this not describe all terrorists?

Book Review: 'Baader-Meinhof' by Stefan Aust - washingtonpost.com

The truth is not at the heart of this telling of the gang's story, but it emerges nonetheless: Strip away the soap opera and the high school intellectualism, and what remains is a simple tale of thugs in love with violence

Whether zealots of religiion or zealots of political ideology? Whether Tamil Tigers or some splinter group of the IRA or Hamas or The Weather Udnerground?

Some Thoughts for Dick Cheney

Cheney's ravings about us being less safe now than under the Bush-Cheney regime would have had a Democrat making the same allegations whisked off to some black hole of a CIA detention facility in a country where English is not even a second language.

Besides showing a lack of good judgment, Cheney proves himself to be the cowardly sort that starts at every creak of the floorboard.

I have thought much of the Bush/Cheney program rooted itself in cowardice or in what Gore Vidal calls sissiness in some of his political essays. I never understood what he meant until half way through the Bush's first term.

The following articles from The Washington Post underscore just how stupid we have been.

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots :

"In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said."

General's Paper Sheds Light on Counterinsurgency:

Claims that the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan handles only security "have no place in this campaign," Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, wrote in a guidance paper sent to his troops.

Instead, he directed his command to "focus on governance, development and security concurrently" because "success in Afghanistan will not come from the sole pursuit of a security line of operations by military forces."

McKiernan's three-page counterinsurgency guidance paper, which was provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week by Gen. David H. Petraeus, puts in practical terms hard lessons learned by the U.S. military over the past eight years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

rce in Afghanistan handles only security "have no place in this campaign," Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, wrote in a guidance paper sent to his troops.

Instead, he directed his command to "focus on governance, development and security concurrently" because "success in Afghanistan will not come from the sole pursuit of a security line of operations by military forces."

McKiernan's three-page counterinsurgency guidance paper, which was provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week by Gen. David H. Petraeus, puts in practical terms hard lessons learned by the U.S. military over the past eight years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Big Idea: Want to Fight Terrorists? Try Mocking Them:

"With the Taliban regaining strength and Osama bin Laden still on the loose, President Obama announced a new strategy Friday to 'disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda' in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition to new funding for Pakistan's democratic institutions and more U.S. troops to train the Afghan security forces, here's another anti-terrorism tactic the president might consider: Make al-Qaeda boring."

Which might sound silly but I learned long ago that if I could get someone to laugh at an opposing party's case, that was the end of that case.

Adios, to Mr. Cheney's favorite water sport.

Muslim Liberals

Something a bit different from Scotland:

A DECADE-LONG battle between Scotland's Muslim old guard and a new generation of reformers has been won by the young liberals who will now move into positions of power in the country's largest mosque.

The clash is being interpreted as a battle between older believers who define themselves as Pakistani and younger ones who see themselves as Scottish-British. Young muslims have been pushing for reform at Glasgow's Central Mosque for 10 years.

They want women and children to play a greater role and for imams to engage more with the non-Muslim community. They also want the religious focus of Islam in Scotland to contend with modern social evils, including drug abuse and gang violence.

Obama TV Interview

The first one goes to....Al-Arabiya news channel. From The New York Times:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday chose an Arabic satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president, delivering a message to the Muslim world that ''Americans are not your enemy.''

The interview underscored Obama's commitment to repair relations with the Muslim world that have suffered under the previous administration.

***

Obama called for a new partnership with the Muslim world ''based on mutual respect and mutual interest.'' He talked about growing up in Indonesia, the Muslim world's most populous nation, and noted that he has Muslim relatives.

The new president said he felt it was important to ''get engaged right away'' in the Middle East and had directed Mitchell to talk to ''all the major parties involved.'' His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the interview.

''What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating,'' Obama told the interviewer.

The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that both Israel and the Palestinians have hard choices to make.

Sudan, the CIA

Take a look at this article for a view of what others think of our government. We have a war of ideas going on. Unfortunately for us we have had a government that brought a knife to a gunfight. The point here is not whether the anti-American viewpoint is right or wrong. The point is that it exists and must be understood. Once understood we must ask ourselves how to deal with it. Ignoring the unpleasant, the false, will not work. There are many eager ears out there willing to listen.

What About Afghanistan?

News from Scotland's Sunday Herald. I read Afghanistan is a war that can be won if the carrot and stick balance is right wondering what light it might cast on McCain and Obama.

Of course, it is doing no such thing. Carleton-Smith was simply stating the obvious: that no war of this kind can ever be won by military tactics alone. As has become blindingly clear over the past couple of years, Nato ground forces will always get the better of the Taliban in a square-go - well, at least they will if they are American, British, Canadian or Dutch, who provide the bulk of the frontline troops.

For all that Taliban fighters display fortitude, endurance and undoubted personal courage, those virtues are no protection against high-velocity weapons and air power. That's why they have returned to tactics which are a mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare and that's why the brigadier, the ambassador and the defence secretary were right to voice their concerns.

advertisement

It now seems all too possible that Afghanistan could become a war without limits and that it could quite easily equal Operation Banner, the British Army's deployment in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 2007. No-one wants that. It would be time-consuming and become increasingly unpopular not just within Nato but also in Afghanistan itself. And it might soon become fiscally impossible to bail out the banks at home while propping up Afghanistan away from home.

This is not a policy of despair. Far from it, I have always maintained that Afghanistan is not a lost cause but a cause that is waiting to be won. And it is eminently winnable if the correct approach is taken. In common with every other counter-insurgency war that was ever fought, there has to be a political dimension to the campaign and that's why it's good to hear that lines of communication have been opened with the Taliban. For the past fortnight, in conditions of utmost secrecy, Afghan negotiators led by Qayum Karzai, brother of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, have been in Saudi Arabia where they have been talking to their Taliban counterparts.

Already the discussions have borne some fruit, with the Taliban agreeing to end indiscriminate attacks on humanitarian aid convoys and to give some consideration to the possibility of breaking off their links with al-Qaeda terrorist groups. Small though those concessions are, they do represent a breakthrough of sorts. With presidential elections due next year it would be better to have the Taliban inside the big tent than causing mayhem outside it.

Some other interesting points but this was the main one.

My conclusion: Obama has a better grasp on Afghanistan than McCain. Odd that a naval officer has so little interest in history - or respect for it.

And words to remember from another time:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!

Indianapolis Lawyer to Give Talk About Detainee

The Indianapolis Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society will present " Boumediene : Where do we go from here?" at noon Sept. 11 at Ice Miller in Indianapolis.

The ACS invited attorney Neil H. Koslowe, of Washington, D.C., firm Shearman & Sterling to speak at the event. Koslowe is counsel in Al Odah, Next Friend of Al Odah, et al. v. United States of America, No. 06-1196, the companion case to Boumediene, et al. v. Bush, et al. , No. 06-1195 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on in June.

More at Lawyer to speak about detainee client.

So What Did We Lose in Vietnam

I was reading Mailer’s Great American Meltdown in The New York Times when I reached thiis paragraph:

"What would happen to Indochina and the rest of the world if Communism were to carry the day in Vietnam? The dove majority, in Mailer’s judgment, “simply refused to face the possibility.” The mass peace movement, its grown-ups, anyway, had compressed a hostility to the war into what he called a “hopeless mélange, somehow firmed, of Pacifism and closet Communism.” And the resulting national debate over Vietnam seemed to him twisted and fake: “The hawks were smug and self­-righteous, the doves were evasive of the real question.”"

For all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over what happened in Vietnam between 1968 and 1972, what did we actually gain and lose? Yes, we lost a lot of people but that is a superficial answer to the question I am asking and which is usually the point of these discussion. Those people were sent to die and did die for a more political/strategic reason.

At 48 looking back over thirty years ago, I see the Vietnam War as a battle in the much longer, wider Cold War. That we seem to have won. Well, there is no going back to the USSR. We now trade with Vietnam and they want our dollars. Thailand, Laos, Cambodia did fall under a Communist hegemony. The fall of Vietnam did not hinder our winning the Cold War which depended so much on our prestige as the land of the free. Yet Vietnam gets waved about as a bloody shirt. What it does show - in my opinion - is that we, the people, got so bamboozled by our politicians working on our own self-esteem as the do-gooders who could do no wrong (hey, we saved the world from the Nazis!) and fears of Communism (they want to take us over and make us into pod people!) for their own purposes entrenching themselves into positions of power.

Let us just make sure we do not let them do it any longer (yes, those voting for Bush in 2004 fell for this) with Iraq and our "War on Terror". We are smarter than that. (And we are - look at the 2006 Congressional election).

Terrorists - How Much Do We Have to Fear?

Take a good look at Glenn L. Carle's Overstating Our Fears. I think the following is the meat of the article but there are some other good arguments on the way to this point:

"The threat from Islamic terrorism is no larger now than it was before Sept. 11, 2001. Islamic societies the world over are in turmoil and will continue for years to produce small numbers of dedicated killers, whom we must stop. U.S. and allied intelligence do a good job at that; these efforts, however, will never succeed in neutralizing every terrorist, everywhere.

Why are these views so starkly at odds with what the Bush administration has said since the beginning of the 'Global War on Terror'? This administration has heard what it has wished to hear, pressured the intelligence community to verify preconceptions, undermined or sidetracked opposing voices, and both instituted and been victim of procedures that guaranteed that the slightest terrorist threat reporting would receive disproportionate weight -- thereby comforting the administration's preconceptions and policy inclinations.

We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are."

Obama and Israel

I thought about this the other day. Frankly, I support Israel. They and the Turks are our best friends in the Mideast. Yet, my enthusiasm started waning when Sharon charged through that Palestinian camp and I realize that Israel's interests and ours are not always the same. Nor can they ever be - no person's interests are precisely the same as another's and this is as true for country's. Consider now the following from Obama and the Jews:

"The notion that a President Barack Obama would have a desire or ability to walk away from this consensus American position is ludicrous. But given the simmering controversy over whether Mr. Obama is “good for Israel,” it’s worth exploring this question: What really makes a pro-Israel president?"

Personally, as an American Jew, I don’t vote for president on the basis of who will be the strongest supporter of Israel. I vote for who will make America strongest. It’s not only because this is my country, first and always, but because the single greatest source of support and protection for Israel is an America that is financially and militarily strong, and globally respected. Nothing would imperil Israel more than an enfeebled, isolated America.

***
But what matters a lot more is that under Mr. Bush, America today is neither feared nor respected nor liked in the Middle East, and that his lack of an energy policy for seven years has left Israel’s enemies and America’s enemies — the petro-dictators and the terrorists they support — stronger than ever. The rise of Iran as a threat to Israel today is directly related to Mr. Bush’s failure to succeed in Iraq and to develop alternatives to oil.

Thinking About Iran

Vali Nasr writes Iran on Its Heels in The Washington Post. This Nasr writer is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. So sounds like he knows a thing or two. This gets me thinking that Bush and McCain are distracting us from something:

"Iran wants U.S. forces to leave Iraq and assumes that a friendly Shiite government would then protect Iran's interests. Tehran has looked to Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, to manage its strategy of supporting Shiite unity and resisting American occupation. But these efforts do not go hand in hand. The first means supporting stability and state-building and working with Iraq's government; the second involves building violent militias that undermine government authority.
ad_icon

It was easy for Tehran to do both when a sectarian war united Shiites against a common Sunni enemy. But sectarian violence has largely ceased, and Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda are no longer imminent threats. Throughout 2007, militias challenged the government as they terrorized neighborhoods in southern Iraq, disrupting commerce and assassinating clerics as well as government and provincial officials. The situation came to a head in August when Mahdi Army gunmen killed several pilgrims in Karbala. Tehran intervened; Sadr agreed to a truce with government forces and rival Shiite parties and ordered his militia to stand down."

***

It is a frequent refrain in Washington that the United States needs leverage before it can talk to Iran. In Iraq, Washington is getting leverage. America has the advantage while Iran is on its heels. Engaging Iran now could even influence who wins the Iraq debate in Tehran.

David Broder Calls Biden and Lugar Our Foreign Policy's Best Hope

That was the title of one of his columns last week - Foreign Policy's Best Hope.

"Last week, I visited the likeliest source. I spent two hours in separate but parallel interviews with the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden of Delaware, and the ranking Republican on that panel, Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Despite all the static in the political atmosphere, Biden and Lugar left me believing that there is hope of overcoming the divisive legacy of the past six years -- in large part because of the work these two have done together to prepare the way."

***

It is not certain that Biden and Lugar will remain in their posts when the new president takes office. Biden is a plausible choice for vice president or secretary of state under Barack Obama. Lugar could serve as secretary of state for either John McCain or Obama, a man Lugar recruited for membership on Foreign Relations and a vocal admirer of his.

But if they stay where they are, they could be the best friends the new president has on Capitol Hill. Both Lugar and Biden have run for the presidency themselves, and both are genuinely ready to work with a new president after feeling more than frustrated by their dealings with the Bush White House. If that new president wants a genuine partnership on an American foreign policy, he would have to look no farther than these two.

The Real Terror of the Bush Years

Okay, I am reading The New York Times' review of Eric Lichtblau's Bush’s Law . Then I get to these paragraphs and I just find them scary.

"James Ziglar, the relatively obscure head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service when terrorists struck on 9/11, worried about such miscues and overreactions. Hours after the attacks, he joined other top law enforcement and intelligence officials in the F.B.I.’s top-secret Strategic Information Operations Center, headquarters for the government’s domestic response. When Ziglar heard proposals for mass sweeps in Muslim communities like Dearborn, Mich., he grew concerned.

“I know you’re not a lawyer,” he remarked to John Ashcroft’s chief of staff, “but we do have this thing called the Constitution.” “The table grew quiet, faces tightening around it,” Lichtblau says, as Ziglar expanded on his tutorial. Finally, he declared, “The I.N.S. won’t be involved.” Ziglar was soon forced out, but not before enduring some humiliating moments."

These are our government officials doing this. Figuring out how to violate the rights of citizens. Bulking up the power of government. Yes, we should be very scared. No, good intentions are not enough. Take a look at what paves that road to hell. Remember the ends do not justify the means.

Obama, Bush and Foreign Policy

I am a little late on commenting about the idiotic speech that Bush gave in Israel. That speech was so wrong in so many ways and so many others have done a good job of explaining Bush's errors. Obama showed that he is ready to take on the foreign policy debate.

James Rubin nailed McCain with Hypocrisy on Hamas McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It from The Washington Post:

The Obama campaign was right to criticize the president for his remarks and for engaging in partisan politics while overseas. Many presidents have said things abroad that could be construed as violating this unwritten rule of American politics. But it is hard to remember any president abusing the prestige of his office in as crude a way as Bush did yesterday. Charging your opponents with appeasement and likening them to Neville Chamberlain in the Knesset is a brutal blow. It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the parliament of a friendly government marks a new low.

McCain, meanwhile, is guilty of hypocrisy. I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and believe that she was right to say, about McCain's statement on Hamas, "I don't think that anybody should take that seriously." Unfortunately, the Republicans know that some people will. That's why they say such things.

Presidential Candidate McCain opposes Senator McCain on Hamas. Political expediency from the straight talk express.

Usually, I think Chris Matthews is more talk than substance but he proved himself full of substance when discussing appeasement with some right wing talk show nut. If you do not know what I meant take a look at A QUESTION OF APPEASEMENT? and watch the video. I am torn between worrying over the state of America's educational system and a worry that this was not a display of ignorance but a cowardly lie.

Like a lot of political "debate" these past six years, we have the Bushies tossing out a phrase which apparently they nothing about but that it is such an insult that it ends debates. Democracy is more than elections. Democracy means we get to debate and set the political discourse and not just accept what our "leaders" tell us. The Soviet Union allowed for elections but no dissent, and we did not call them a democracy.

Obama proposes talking to Iran. He has not said that he was agreeing to anything other than talking to them. I say that beats Bush's foreign policy that has allowed Iran an unprecedented influence in Iraq that exceeds our own.

What to read Obama's own comments on Iran and Hamas? Jeffery Goldberg's blog on Atlantic.com has Obama on Zionism and Hamas. Goldberg interviews Obama.

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

BO: I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.

When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.

I was laid up yesterday and got too much of panel discussions about Bush and McCain and Obama and our foreign policy. There was some interesting stuff but a couple things I did not hear:

1. The moral culpability of Republicans and other isolationists for World War 2 or its predecessor, the Spanish Civil War. Just as Bush glided over which Democrat he referred to in his Knesset speech, he avoided mentioning that the source for his quote about Hilter was a Republican Senator. That Senator was Senator Borah of Idaho. He would have done better to apologize for the Republican non-interventionism, our isolationism, that ended only with Japanese bombs on Pearl Harbor.
2. Not even Pat Buchanan mentioned Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick policy. I recall seeing that there was more than "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I think one was "Talk loudly and carry a big stick" which was equated with a bully. We all know the weaknesses of bullies. George W. Bush has being talking loudly and carrying a big stick (which he has no capacity for knowing how to use well). I think everyone agrees that TR was our most bellicose talking president between Jackson and George W., but he never failed in talking first to our opponents. Of course, George W. plunged us into our first preemptive war differs from both Jackson and Roosevelt from a complete lack of experience of war.
   

Bottom line: Bush has made a hash of our foreign policy and our national reputation and stripped the gears of the American military; McCain now endorses this policy; and the Democrats oppose our Bush created diminishment.

Iraq, the Shia and al-Sadr

I find The London Times review of Muqtada al-Sadr and the Fall of Iraq by Patrick Cockburn worth reading. With John McCain not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni, with all the accusations that the Democrats plan to withdraw equals surrender to al Quaeda, the review raises points that make McCain's ignorance dangerous to us and the accusers plain wrong. Think of the Shia and the Sunnis as being more like the Hatfields and the McCoys than the Red Sox and the Yankees. Then factor in that al-Quaeda are Sunnis.

Patrick Cockburn was among the first journalists to grasp al-Sadr's influence. In this fascinating biography, he neatly punctures the myth that al-Sadr is a crazy gangster who stumbled into leading thousands of disaffected young Shi'ites in armed rebellion. Instead, he draws upon his own reporting and often overlooked aspects of Iraqi history to present a compelling, detail-packed tale of how al-Sadr outflanked everyone from Saddam Hussein to the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Cockburn spends more than half the book recounting the modern history of Iraq's Shi'ites to make one overriding point: that the first but by no means sole reason for al-Sadr's influence is his lineage. His cousin and father-in-law, the Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, was one of the most senior and respected leaders of Iraq's Shi'ite community. Baqir chafed against the largely secular, Sunni-led tyranny of the Ba'athists and sought to overthrow the regime by endorsing terror attacks against government figures. Saddam eventually ordered him and his sister to be arrested. Sadrists believe Baqir was forced to witness the rape of his sister before he was executed.

***

Cockburn's emphasis on history, though at times tedious, offers some additional lessons, most notably the Sadrists' thirst for revenge spawned by Ba'athist repression, and the animus toward other Shi'ite opposition groups because of their failure to aid the Sadrists in their moments of need. It helps to explain why the Mahdi Army has brutally terrorised the Sunni community, and why al-Sadr, to this day, remains so wary of collaborating with other Shi'ite political leaders.

As American troops converged on Baghdad, Cockburn notes that al-Sadr “moved more quickly than anyone else to organise his supporters”. Within a few days, they had seized control of most schools, mosques and government buildings in Sadr City, the sprawling Shi'ite slum that is home to more than 6m people. I remember visiting the hospital there a few weeks after Saddam was overthrown. The place was under the control of a 31-year-old electronics technician who had not been to medical school. His only claim to power was a one-page edict from al-Sadr's office.

***

“One of the grossest of US errors in Iraq was to try to marginalise him and his movement,” writes Cockburn. “Had he been part of the political process from the beginning then the chances of creating a peaceful, prosperous Iraq would have been greater. In any real accommodation between Shia and Sunni, the Sadrists must play a central part.”

***

This book is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand Iraq today. The recent fighting in Basra and Sadr City has once again demonstrated al-Sadr's cunning and power. American military commanders boasted last year that their troop surge had led al-Sadr to flee to Iran and that his militia was splintering. But he appears to have made another shrewd move. Instead of fighting it out with the Americans, he opted to cut a deal with the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to stand down the Mahdi Army - for the time being. Nobody knows for sure what al-Sadr's plans are, but it is clear that he and his militia are not a spent force.

After that go read the London Times' Jihadi studies The obstacles to understanding radical Islam and the opportunities to know it better. Just the following paragraph gives me an idea of what has gone wrong is the re-election of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Remember how they laughed at the word nuance? Nuance appears to be something we needed and so instead of using our brains the President used the brawn of our military.

Yet the lack of understanding about the enemy has led to serious inefficiencies and excesses which are starting to become publicly known. An astronomical sum of money has been spent on counter-terrorism and homeland security, much of which has gone to private American consultancies with questionable expertise. Then there is the human cost of the search for enemies. The Kafkaesque conversations between detainees and their accusers at Guantánamo Bay reveal a US military with a chronic lack of accountability and a poor understanding about the Middle East and Islamic activism. The security establishment was not alone in its ignorance about jihadism. Middle East scholars on both sides of the Atlantic had long shunned the study of Islamist militancy for fear of promoting Islamophobia and of being associated with a pro-Israeli political agenda. In these communities, there was a tendency to rely on simple grievance-based explanations of terrorism and to ignore the role of entrepreneurial individuals and organizations in the generation of violence. This is part of the reason why the main contributions to the literature on al-Qaeda in the first few years after 9/11 came from investigative journalists, not academics.

McCain and Iraq

Considering that John McCain says he wants to continue George W. Bush's Iraq misadventure, I think taking a look at The Center for Public Integrity's Iraq: The War Card is a good idea.

"President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

Keeping Up With Constitutional Law Issues?

Then check out the American Constitution Society Blog. Masson's Blog mentioned the release of torture memo here. The ACS has a post here with links to commentary. Until I meet someone who thinks waterboarding is not torture and who I have no doubts about their mental health, I remain convinced this memo is an embarrassment to this country.

Iraq and Afghanistan, Again

I repeat myself: what are we supposed to win in Iraq? We came not as conquerors but as liberators seeking to root out terrorism and a tyrant. Well, that is my melange of all the shifting and twisting goals espoused by George W. and his Fearless Neo-con Brain Trust.

So reading these paragraphs by Anthony H. Cordesman in Two Winnable Wars leave me wondering if someone is redefining our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan:

What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don't end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.

If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.

I thought going into Iraq was a mistake. I still think so. I also say those points no longer matter. This country allowed George W. Bush the ability to make a complete screw up of our military and foreign policy. We also have the responsibility to help fix the problems we created and the ones that we exacerbated, but to think our military forces can continue to win tactical battles while losing the strategic war only continues our problems.

With either Democratic candidate, we face the chance of ending the Bush/Republican monomania that we need no help in rebuilding Iraq and that Afghanistan has no place in the war on terror.

Smile, You Might Be on Candid Camera

I am thinking more George Orwell than Allen Funt.

The Washington Post published Rethinking Surveillance last week with suggestions for federal laws to:

¿ Ensure that surveillance technologies satisfy their mission for crime and terror control without the potential for misuse.

¿ Reassure the public that their images are being collected for bona fide objectives, and that there are penalties for those who misuse surveillance recordings.

¿ Promote the adoption of open standards to ensure interoperability, which in turn would promote the introduction of emerging technologies.

The writer suggested the need for such legislation is clear and suggested looking at Britain:

Britain's experience has been helped by legislation passed 10 years ago that put public surveillance under national control. The Data Protection Act of 1998 set clear and consistent guidelines for video monitoring of public spaces, and created the information commissioner's office as the regulatory authority. A code of practice established privacy principles, provided guidelines for safeguarding the use of video images and gave industry a framework for doing business.

Speaking of Great Britain, The Sunday Herald published Top Scottish lawyers: we’re 'all being bugged'

"The legal figures have told the Sunday Herald that police and customs are eavesdropping phone and face-to-face conversations with criminals in prisons and elsewhere, including police stations, on a regular basis UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw has launched an inquiry into allegations that Labour MP Sadiq Khan's conversations with a terrorist suspect who was a constituent were monitored in Woodhill Prison, Bedford."
***

Despite a statement from the Justice Ministry that covert listening operations were a matter for the police in line with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, leading QC Gareth Peirce and shadow home secretary David Davis said the fresh allegations merited another inquiry.

***

Leading advocate Paul McBride, QC, said: For a number of years now, many counsel and solicitors dealing with high profile or sensitive cases, have been suspicious that their private consultations in prison are being listened into by others illegally and that their mobile phones are also the subject of eavesdropping.

For more decades than I like, I have always been puzzled by the political party claiming less government intrusion into our lives favoring the taping, bugging, watching of its citizens by that same government who is too intrusive. Thankfully, we have George W. Bush to show us the truth. Immunity for the telecoms trumps national security. Sharp Exchanges Over Surveillance Law.