Musharraf warns against action in tribal areas

Bush was warned before the Iraqi invasion that such an action held a grave risk to stability in the region. The ever-optimistic Decider, however, only saw a prosperous democracy, a grateful populace, and a whole lot of oil that could be swindled away from them. He threw in something about a "Central Front in the War On Terror" that jingoistic zombies would lap up, and proceeded to create a disaster that strengthened Iran, destabilised Turkey, flooded the region with weapons and refugees, bolstered the ranks of radical islamists, alienated us from virtually all of our allies, and of course brought about a civil war in "liberated" Iraq that continues today.

Now with Afghanistan at a standstill, Iraq sucking up several billion a week, and Pakistan coming apart at the seams, Bush has another plan: invade Pakistan. There is no situation so complex and dynamic that Bush cannot find a way to apply his trademark ultra-simplistic and aburdly optimistic strategies to "solving". Musharraf is now warning Bush that the situation in the tribal areas is more complicated and challenging than Bush sees it, and he further warns that Pakistan will not support any such action. Iraq and Afghanistan apparently have taught the world that the last thing you want is for Bush to try to sort out whatever difficult crisis you may have on your hands. Obviously such warnings will go unheeded, and it's equally obvious that Bush has created a culture of "yes men" in the military who will tell their glorious leader exactly what he wants to hear. One would think that Afghanistan has taught us that air power cannot quell an insurgency; we have been sending armed drones into the Pakistan tribal areas for almost a year now to no effect. Bush keeps on applying conventional war paradigms to an insurgency, and the media boldly follows through on their end with analyses of areas "taken" as if this were some kind of WW2-style conflict. Then we scratch our heads as to why areas that we've 'taken' keep falling back into "enemy" hands. It's an insurgency - there are no "front lines" and salients, no fortifications, no headquarters, no industrial base that can be crushed, no enemy armoured columns, and nobody on the "enemy" side wears a uniform. On top of that, mountain combat is far different. Tanks and trucks can't be brought in on non-existent roads, the air is thin and troops unaccustomed to the altitude get exhausted quickly, communication and supply are difficult, and the population will be against us. And we should not, by Musharraf's words, expect any co-operation from the Pakistani military, which will probably be snickering at our arrogance and unfounded optimism.

Bush has blundered into extremely complex situations where our "allies" have interests that run counter to our and where the "enemy" has interests that coincide with ours, yet everything is viewed through a "with us or against us" lens. A bombing run can, in Bush's mind, simplify things tremendously and make people like us. In a culture where the blood feud is the norm, the population somehow will shrug off the deaths of their relatives in "collateral damage" and be thankful that Bush is setting things right in their backward land.
In short, they will continue to greet us with flowers and chocolates.

story from Express India

America will regret entering Pakistan: Musharraf

Agencies

Posted online: Friday , January 11, 2008 at 05:42:15
Updated: Friday , January 11, 2008 at 05:57:12

Islamabad, January 11: President Pervez Musharraf warned that any unilateral action by US troops to enter Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan in the hunt for al-Qaida militants would be regarded as an invasion and asserted they would "regret" that day.
"The United States seems to think that what our army cannot do, they can do. This is a very wrong perception. I challenge anybody to come into our mountains. They would regret that day," Musharraf said in an interview to Straits Times of Singapore in what seems to be an open dare by him.
Asked if any unauthorised incursion by US forces in the mountainous tribal areas in the hunt for al-Qaida and Taliban militants would be considered an invasion, Musharraf replied, "Certainly. If they come without our permission, that's against the sovereignty of Pakistan."
Musharraf's sternest language yet with the US came in the backdrop of reports that Washington was considering granting the Pentagon and CIA new authority to conduct more aggressive covert operations in Pakistan's tribal areas where al-Qaida is believed to be gaining strength.
Musharraf, however, said when it comes to Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the "methodology of getting him will be discussed together and we'll attack the target together".
"Any action against him will be free, if we know where he is, if we have good intelligence," he said, adding US forces alone would fare no better than their Pakistani counterparts in the rugged terrain.
"Here it's a mountainous terrain. Minimal communications infrastructure. Every individual has a weapon and each tribe has its own armoury and they don't like intrusions into their privacy at all," he said, adding "it's better if they ask some military or intelligence commander of their own whether their army, their people, coming into our mountains will operate better than our army".
Musharraf also joined issue with US Democratic Presidential contender and Senator Hillary Clinton's proposal to place Pakistan's nuclear weapons under supervision by the US and the UK.
Her statement, the President said, was "an intrusion into our privacy, into our sensitivity. She doesn't seem to understand how well-guarded these assets are".
Musharraf also repeated his advice to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to negotiate with the Taliban.
Not all Taliban wanted to behave barbarously, he said, and military action could not, by itself, provide an ultimate solution. A solution would come by moving simultaneously on the socio-economic, political and military fronts.
The road would be long, and in Afghanistan, coalition forces - the US, NATA, Australia and others - would have to have the stamina to persist.
If US-led coalition forces depart without some stable government in place that is strong enough to defend itself, that would "affect the stability of the whole region and the world", he said.
Musharraf also spoke about his talks with the then US President Bill Clinton on the policy to be adopted towards Taliban when he visited Pakistan.
"We were criticised before Sept 11 because we were the only ones who had a relationship with the Taliban. When I came on the scene in 1999, I spoke to the Saudis, to the United Arab Emirates, they had also recognised the Taliban but had removed their embassies from Kabul. I told President Bill Clinton, who was visiting Islamabad, that we should accept the reality (of the Taliban in power in Kabul), have diplomatic relations with them and then change them from within. Had that happened, some things might have been different today."

Republican voter ID requirement is a bad idea

Republicans are always deeply concerned about electoral fraud, though it is Republicans who are responsible for virtually all of the dirty tricks used to prevent legitimate citizens from voting. In the recent past we have seen cases of Republicans removing voters from the rolls who happen to have the same name as convicted felons. Their new tactic is voter-caging, which most commonly consists of an extra (beyond the initial registration address confirmation) check on the validity of a registered voter's residence with a short period in which one must respond or be removed from the rolls. Most often this "catches" people on vacation or those who live in another state for part of the year. In other cases people simply ignore the "confirmation" because it's not sent by the government, but by "concerned citizens groups" who, it turns out, have sway with local voting officials. Oddly, the targets are mostly those registered as Democrats. Yes, they are concerned about fraud.

Now, however, Republicans are pushing for a voter ID requirement. In spite of voter impersonation being a non-existent problem, we are all supposed to be very scared that just anyone can claim to be anyone and actually vote. From NPR:

Royal Masset, a consultant who by his own estimate has been involved in some 5,000 Republican campaigns in Texas, agrees.
"My experience is that in-person voter fraud is nonexistent," he says. "It doesn't happen, and if you really analyze it, it makes no sense because who's going to take the risk of going to jail on something so blatant that maybe changes one vote?"

But, as Republicans in Indiana are arguing, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be terrified, because it could happen, and then people wouldn't trust the election process. Yes, the Party that brought you the hanging chad and got their man in the White House by a Supreme Court decision is worried that people might not trust the process due to a non-existent problem. So we need to make it harder to vote, but only on the poor and elderly; let's not go too far here.

The idea being put forward is that everyone has a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. We are told that people can't exist in today's society without one, so requiring one to vote is not a problem. Besides, this is a helpful incentive to get those tiny few without IDs to go out and get that essential item.

I drive, so I do have a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. But for decades I didn't drive and didn't need one. If I didn't drive now, I wouldn't need one. The last time I needed to show my ID was at the DMV to get a new one to replace the one that expired. I don't fly, I don't hang out in federal courthouses, my bank account was established more than ten years ago, and I haven't changed jobs in some time. People just simply aren't asking to see my ID, as much as that shocks Republicans. My two credit cards for several thousands were obtained by mail without anyone ever seeing an ID. Again, if I didn't drive, there would be no need whatsoever for me to travel (somehow) several miles to the County Office to keep my ID current, and I probably wouldn't. So this idea that a current, valid, state-issued photo ID is a neccessity is one spun from arrogance. It is the same kind of arrogance that propounds that "everyone" has a computer and online access, or that "everyone" has a phone. I have never needed to show an ID to vote, only to register to vote, and that was over ten years ago, so there would be no need for me to have a current ID now. Twenty years from now my registration will still be valid (under the current law, unless Republicans change it), as long as I don't move. I can comfortably conceive living the rest of my life without an ID, unless I change jobs, and even then I would see no need to keep it current. Apparently this isn't such a crazy concept. Again, from NPR:

But the Census Bureau and the Federal Highway Administration estimate that 11 percent of voting-age citizens, some 21 million Americans, lack any form of current government-issued photo ID. The ubiquitous driver's license doesn't exist for many city dwellers who use public transportation, or for those too poor to own a car, or for senior citizens who no longer drive.

So, and this is the important thing, under the Republican plan, the only time I would need an ID (this incredibly important document that apparently nobody can live without these days) is when I would turn up to vote every few years. This is important precisely because this is a condition that offers no other benefit to me other than being able to vote. Back in the days of the poll taxes, people paid a fee and got a worthless document that was good for nothing except proving their eligibility to vote. Sure an ID would let me enter federal courthouses, but I really don't need to do that. In fact, I served on jury duty this summer in the Hennepin County Government Center and nobody ever asked to see my ID, just the jury duty summons that was mailed to me. Oddly, nobody is concerned that I could have given that jury summons to anyone and they could have impersonated me at will. I'm sure that doesn't happen, but it could; shouldn't we be terrified? Sure, an ID would let me on to a plane, but I really don't do that, either. In commercial transactions, my bank card or credit card is all anyone ever asks to see. Other than driving, I don't need an ID at all to live my life.

We are already required to have a Social Security number and provided with a card. I had to get one when I was 16, but now you get one at birth. That proves citizenship (at least in theory, because they are widely forged), which is more than a current, valid, state-issued photo ID does. A state-issued photo ID also does not prove that you are a convicted felon, and thus ineligible to vote.

Aside from the fact that an state ID is not the absolute necessity the Republicans try to portray it as, there are high costs in getting one. In the case at hand in the Supreme Court, Indiana offers a free state ID for those willing to travel to a state office (which could be quite some distance away and difficult for someone who obviously doesn't drive to reach) and those with a certified birth certificate. Getting a birth certificate from another state can cost about $50, which is a lot of money for a lot of people, especially for something they really only need to show at election time. And it must be kept current, requiring more trips to the County Office. I guess nobody lives in rural areas where the County seat can be 20 or 30 miles away. Again, the only reason someone would have to go through this is to satisfy a poll judge every four years in order to address a problem that simply doesn't exist. But all of this can easily be dismissed by Republicans:

"There are burdens to register to vote; there are burdens in gas or shoe leather in going to the polls," Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita says. "That doesn't mean they were disenfranchised. They chose not to go through the parameters for voting in person on Election Day that are required in Indiana."

So why not require someone to dance the Tango before they can vote? Elections don't sneak up on people. They have plenty of time to learn the Tango, or Swahili, or master a Rubik's Cube. The answer is that these things would keep Republicans from voting, too. In my state, Minnesota, one can register at the polls, which are by nature close to people. It's a one-time thing, unless you move, in which case you can go to another neighbourhood polling place and register easily. You can use a utility bill in your name as ID; you don't need a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. Sure, anyone could have stolen that utility bill out your mailbox and tried to impersonate you, and then they could...vote? Oh, the horror!

Where does this stop? Couldn't someone who looks somewhat like you steal your ID and use it to vote? Heck, we can't let just anyone who looks like you vote; that's too scary. We need a DNA test or a retinal scan, comrade. Are we going to have people who grew a moustache or shaved off their beards since the ID photo was taken turned away because the picture doesn't match? Will people who wore contacts in their picture be refused the right to vote because they wore glasses that day? We can't be too careful, can we? Hmmm, this ID says you weigh 160 pounds, but I think you weigh 180. Sorry, buddy. Nice try, whoever you really are. You may think this is ridiculous and making a big deal out of nothing, but so is this false concern over people impersonating registered voters. Identity theft is a big problem. Getting a photo ID of someone else is not a big issue if you can obtain the proper documents and personal information, which apparently is easier than most of us would like. It could happen, and that is precisely the justification behind the Republican voter ID laws. Photo IDs prove nothing.

The sensible solution is to allow another registered voter to sign an affidavit that certifies you are who are say you are and live where you say you live. This requires no cost, which is why Republicans oppose it. The entire premise is to impose costs and travel on people who can't afford it and decide that voting isn't that important.

I had a poll observer certify me in one election. I had just moved into the neighbourhood a few weeks earlier and (gasp!) hadn't gone downtown to renew my ID. In fact, even if I had renewed my ID, it would not have arrived by election time and I would only have had the receipt for the ID without my photo. There was no way I could have predicted weeks before where I would have ended up living. I had no utility bill yet and my rent receipt didn't have an address on it. The poll observer walked the two blocks with me to my apartment and I opened the door and showed him my expired ID and Social Security card and he vouched for me at the polls. If I really was impersonating someone else, I sure would have been going to a lot of work just to cast a vote. Under the Republican voter rules, I would not have been allowed to vote that election. In fact, there was no way I could have voted at all other than voting falsely in my old precinct, since an ID would not have arrived in time for me to use it. Should we prohibit people from moving into a new place in November? No, let's just prohibit them from voting.

The affidavit option is reasonable. Political parties can easily provide someone to verify that you live at the address you claim, which is all that should be required. Again, a photo ID does not prove citizenship or lack of a felonious criminal record. Political parties cannot be expected, however, to come up with $50 for the documents for each person to get an ID or drive them long distances to obtain one. Who would turn down a neighbour's request to vouch for them at the polls? Sure, they could lie and put their name on record and risk going to jail, but is that really a credible risk?

Remember, voting is a right. Do we check someone's ID before we grant them the right of free speech? No, we don't. Do we let someone cross state lines without a photo ID? Yes, we do, and I've done it. Do we let someone serve on a jury without a photo ID? Yes, we do, and I've done it.

This voter ID requirement is nothing more than a barrier to keep people from voting who should be allowed to vote. I've shown an example where I would have been denied the right to vote through no fault of my own were these restrictions in place. This is not an merely an "inconvenience", it is placing an impossible and unreasonable barrier on citizens in certain circumstances. A photo ID does not prove that a person is eligible to vote, so these requirements do not restore faith in the voting process. Even if voter impersonation were prevalent, which it isn't, these new restrictions do nothing to solve the problem and may very well keep citizens from voting.

A Change in the Weather

I watched the Republican debate on ABC last night, and I was amazed at how far off the pundit class has been in their analysis. The major networks and most of the opinion columnists at the newspapers have been living in a dream world where the Republican Old Guard is dominant, relevant, and popular. A few months ago the 'conventional wisdom' was that we would be looking at a Thompson/Giuliani fight, and that the winner of this fight would crush the Democrats with a lethal combination of tax cuts, "victory" in Iraq, "send-the-Mexicans-packing", and the promise of saving the nation from socialised medicine.

How wrong they were.

In the debate, Thompson limited himself to a few snide remarks aimed at Ron Paul and some nebulously vague positions. This Hero of the punditry is now polling behind Ron Paul, who was dismissed as a nut. He rumbled and mumbled as if the whole discussion was a lot of "tomfoolery". And Giuliani, whose bold vision of war against the Islamic World was supposed to light the nation on fire with fear and hatred, is tanking and nearly broke. Somebody should tell the guy that 9/11 was six years ago, and will be seven years old by the time the election comes around. Besides, the Katrina response stands out much more vividly in people's minds as the way Republicans handle major disasters.

The major points:
- The GWOT as the pre-eminent challenge of the century. It simply isn't, and even if it were, military force cannot crush something as stateless as an idea. We cannot promote democracy and freedom in the Islamic world and simultaneously require draconian police-state suppression in those nations. Further, forcing puppet regimes to follow our dictates does not make us appear attractive or even powerful to the Islamic world; it makes appear as a foreign oppressor. We offer no hope or development to the common person beyond the freedom from radical jihadists, and that path is paved with repression and economic collapse. Immediately after 9/11 we had the support of the global community to do what needed to be done to marginalise the radical islamists. We blew it with arrogance and an invasion that had nothing to do with crushing radical Islam. We came out with a policy that said we are justified in invading any country that not only posed a threat to our security, but that had the potential to pose a threat. That covers pretty much the whole world, since any country that has a brewery can produce biological weapons, any country that has a laboratory on the level of the average high-school can produce a chemical weapon, and virtually any country can get their hands on enough radioactive material to create a dirty bomb. So we essentially told the world that if you don't play by our rules, you will get crushed.

- Private health insurance as the real solution. Yeah, this one's a winner. The way to solve the problem of so many people without health insurance and so many employers simply not offering it is to require people to buy it. We could also solve the problem of inadequate mass transit systems by requiring people to buy cars. The argument that we have the best health care in the world is like pointing to the number of Bentleys in a state and saying they have the best cars in the world. It's simply irrelevant. The number of shiny, high-tech devices in your city's hospital doesn't really matter if you can't afford the care. The vast majority of people don't need super-expensive, high-tech care, anyway. They need relatively low-tech testing, monitoring, and medication. An early diagnosis of diabetes, for example, is far better than dealing with an amputation down the road and facing catastrophic expenses and a super-high-tech artificial limb. The truth is that the private sector has dropped the ball by creating so many low-wage jobs without medical coverage, or only catastrophic coverage. For companies that do provide medical coverage, the biggest dis-incentive to hire new people is the cost of medical coverage. Universal single-payer health care would be the biggest single thing the government could do to increase employment. Medical savings accounts are also a joke. You put your own money into an account that can be used for medical expenses. Wow, why didn't we think of that before? It differs from putting your own money into a regular old savings account that can be used for anything because the MSA uses pre-tax dollars. Oooh, that makes a big difference. The more money you put in, the lower your taxable income. Or put differently, the more money you can afford to put in, the less taxes you pay. This is so out of touch with the average working family living paycheck to paycheck and drowning in debt that it is pathetic. If a family could afford to pay their own medical bills without insurance, they would not be facing bankruptcy due to catastrophic health care costs. The idea of "shopping around" is also particularly lame. Let's say you've had a sore throat for a week. It may be strep throat, but you don't know. So you spend a few hours shopping around for the cheapest office visit, mostly sitting on hold. Then you find out you need a throat culture. Start shopping around for the cheapest throat culture, and pay for another office visit that costs more than Dr. Cheapo where you went first. Then you find out that you do have strep throat, and you need penicillin. Shop around again, sitting on hold trying to quote various pharmacies. In the meantime, you've exposed your family and co-workers to strep throat over the past week. More expenses all around. The Republican idea that all of this "shopping around" could be done online is ludicrous, since you don't know what you will need beforehand, and since there are different prices at the same place for different situations.

- You are screaming for tax cuts. Nobody likes paying taxes, but people have learned that federal tax cuts just get pushed down the pipe into state and local taxes and fees. You end up paying the same either way. Even worse, you now have fragmented services and severe cuts in local budgets. The counties that have a higher tax base get good roads, the streets get plowed and cleaned on time, the schools get better teachers and facilities, the libraries are actually open, and so forth. The poorer counties get screwed. The fees for things like licence plates, building permits, birth certificates, etc. go way, way up. It's also harder to reach anyone, and the people you do reach are overwhelmed due to staff cutbacks. Besides, polls show that taxation is way down on the list of concerns for voters. Tax cuts have been great for the wealthy, but they have not done their part and invested their new money in jobs and growth. Instead, it's gone into off-shoring your job away and speculating on a real-estate bubble. Likewise, the Reagan tax cuts were squandered on forced leveraged buyouts that made companies weaker and produced mass layoffs. The rich take the money and run, and leave you to face the consequences. The Republicans try to counter this by stretching the definition of "rich". Those families making $250,000 or more are going to suffer, so you don't want the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Again, they are in their own little world on this. That's not the average person, and someone making a quarter million can afford another thousand in taxes over a year ($84 a month - gasp!). It's those making millions a year that will see big increases. Boo-hoo.

- Send the Mexicans home. Okay, we're going to round up 12 million illegal immigrants and send them home, or so Romney says. How do we know who they are? Look in the phone directory under "illegal immigrant"? First, we require a national ID card, comrade. Fingerprints, biometric scans, background checks, the works. That won't cost any money. And considering this is the government that couldn't handle the demand for passports for people going on their winter Caribbean vacation, I wonder how something on this massive a scale would work out. But let's not get bogged down in reality. Now we have to check everyone's papers to determine if they are illegal or not. House-to-house Gestapo searches? Pre-employment checks? Prospective employers are going to hold those without proper papers? Nobody works in the underground economy, do they? It's silly. But we also have to build a Berlin Wall on the Mexican border, which somehow also is extremely cheap, and we have to keep it manned and maintained. A huge new Border Patrol won't cost any money, either, I guess. With our lax port security, somehow no immigrants will come in cargo ships or in small boats, much like drug smugglers use. And nobody in our massive Immigration Gestapo will take bribes. Short of an incredibly expensive, completely unaccountable, and supremely intrusive police state, this cannot possibly work. What none of the Republican candidates addressed was that legal immigration has ridiculously huge barriers. For example, one must own a house. It's designed to allow only those people who don't have an overwhelming need to immigrate to come here legally. Opening up the legal route to immigration is what is needed, but this doesn't play well with the fear of brown-skinned people that Republicans prey on.

- "Victory" in Iraq. This is the stupidest yet. The American people are supposedly so impressed that the violence has now come down to levels that were intolerable before the surge that they will embrace the Republican vision of Eternal War as wise and essential. Most people bought in to Iraq as a quick, easy war. We replace Saddam, a new government takes over, and everyone lives happily ever after. Sure, Bush never specifically promised that, but that was how people thought it would go down. Five years in, the majority now think going into Iraq was a mistake, and only a slim majority think we can "win", whatever that means. Petraeus is saying ten more years before Iraq is what most people would consider to be "stable". The surge was supposed to wrap things up, at least in the public's mind. It didn't. The costs are huge, and we've borrowed our way into deep debt to pay for an occupation that really has nothing to do with the GWOT. Al-Qaeda didn't bite on the idea that all of the world's terrorists would flock to Iraq and wait in line for us to kill them. Instead we got into a civil war and increased Iran's influence over the country by eliminating their greatest foe. It's actually been a great recruiting tool for the jihadists. Even worse, it's stretched our military so thin that we can't effectively deal with new threats that really do involve radical jihadists. Afghanistan is stalled, and Pakistan is unravelling. The world is chuckling at us behind our backs, and our allies are backing away from us. China and Russia are getting bolder and stronger and richer. Foreign leaders that once backed Bush have been replaced, and commitments have been cut. Our currency is declining due to the massive debts from the occupation. The GWOT is not suitable for a military solution. It's really more of a law-enforcement scenario. But you don't get to shovel obscene amounts of money into defence contractors with a law-enforcement scenario, and you don't get to play the "Bring 'Em On!" tough guy with that kind of approach, either. But when you blow it, you look worse than you did before. This issue is only a winner with those people who would have voted for the Bush agenda already. It's a lateral move at best.

So these are the thoughts that went through my mind as I came across the post on the Daily Kos below. As the Republicans splinter and fight to the death over who will be the one to lose the election in November, the Democrats essentially only differ on style and image, not policy. The Republicans have not been rewarded with large campaign contributions by the fickle wealthy who cashed in on their agenda. The Christian fundamentalists no longer "know their place". Republican legislators have literally staked their careers on a Party running on bluff and fumes. Candidates that based their positions on loyalty to the Bush agenda are being given a run for their money from "nuts" like Ron Paul. In New Hampshire, Obama attracted an overflow crowd of well over 3000, while redstate.com brags about a "packed" crowd of 750 that comes to see Romney. Democrats turned out about 2 to 1 over Republicans for the primary in Iowa. Republican candidates are skipping whole states in order to preserve precious funds, and the Right is doing its best to put a brave face on it. Just as they staked the farm on Iraq, they have staked everything on Hillary being the Democratic nominee, and at this point she doesn't seem that "inevitable". Without Clinton-hatred, the Right would have little in their arsenal. The race card and the liberal epithet just don't play like they did 1994, which is the frame that the GOP (and the media pundits) seems to be permanently frozen into. And we still have a long time for Bush to say and do stupid things, with the Republicans forced to stand by him. Since the GOP candidates are essentially offering nothing more than the continuation of the Bush Agenda, it's relevant to note that Bush's low popularity numbers among Independents are remarkably close to those among Democrats. The GOP has, for all practical purposes, driven away the moderates from their Party in favour of an ideologically "pure" base, and they cannot afford any splintering of that base whatsoever.
We still have to see how Super Tuesday turns out before any solid trend can be discerned, and the South may hold some surprises, but for now the coments below seem very insightful:

from The Daily Kos:

We've seen from the polls that independents are tending D this time around. They care more about Dem issues and reflect the same anxieties about the economy and health care, as well as agree that we need to get out of the mistake known as Iraq (surge or no surge). And we know, only too well, in a way the press does not acknowledge, that the (34%) Republican base is far from a majority in this country. In fact, we know from these numbers that conservatism as a philosophy and the Republicans as a party, have failed. This came about because of the failure in the WH known as George W Bush, the most consistently unpopular President in post-WWII polling history. The country doesn't want lock-step politicians that support that guy. The voters are just holding their breath waiting for him to go away, and not a day too soon.

Bush dooms his allies with a fake war

This editorial from a former British Cabinet member perfectly sums up the fallacies in the "Global War on Terror".
It simply is not a war in the conventional sense, but an aspiration. Much like the War On Drugs, there are no military forces or headquarters of the Drug Army, there are no salients, no bunkers to be stormed, no enemy territory. Goverments can be "with us", yet still host the nefarious Drug Army within their borders.

But you don't sell such abstract concepts to the American public. You need to portray it as a real war, like WW2, that we can "win". There is some fixed number of bad guys who are easily identified by black hats and twirling moustaches, and if we can kill them off then we have ourselves a "victory". You are either "with us" or "against us". The trouble is that most of these governments that fall in the "with us" column are unpopular at home, and going along with Bush is a good way to get shown the door in most democracies. For example, Britain, Poland, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, Turkey, Pakistan, etc.

It's a bogus vision with the only benefit being a pat on the head from the Decider, who is hardly popular. He's promised big things and made a whole lot of optimistic speeches, but he's got nothing to show for it. No NATO memberships or EU memberships for his buddies, no big foreign aid packages, no big development programmes, no quick successes - just big bills and piles of corpses and the promise of more of the same. Oh, and an expansion of the "War" to Iran, let's not forget.

Meanwhile, China and Russia sit this one out and get stronger, while Bush bets the farm on a fake "War" waged with unbridled arrogance that drives our allies away from us and bankrupts us. Hooray!


editorial from The Japan Times

Friday, Jan. 4, 2008

Global 'war' waged in vain

By DAVID HOWELL

LONDON — The tragic killing of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan has sent a raft of shock-wave messages round the world. Most of these have been carefully and lengthily noted and analyzed — such as the concern that Pakistan, labeled a frontline state in the fight against terrorism, could now collapse into chaos, or that Islamic fanatics could take over in the vacuum left by her death and take control of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, or the broader point — made with chilling candor by Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, a rival candidate in Pakistan's elections — that it is now "impossible to campaign."

But there is one deeper lesson so ugly, and so awkward, that it has scarcely been discussed at all, or even realized in some quarters: that Benazir Bhutto had become the candidate for election favored by the Washington administration and almost certainly became doomed the moment this became apparent.

This is another failure for the Bush presidency and for American diplomacy on a grand scale, and shows vividly how senior figures in Washington have simply not grasped how the world works.

Whereas once upon a time America was seen as an unquestionable force for good, and the blessing and backing of genial Uncle Sam was eagerly sought, today it is the opposite. Today, American backing is a liability for any political leader and America's once fine reputation lies in tatters.

If, in spite of this sad development, it was still possible for American firepower and sheer military and economic might to master events, deliver results and safeguard its proteges, then people would understandably just have to put up with American unpopularity while welcoming its secure embrace.

But asymmetric warfare has put paid to all that. The microchip, the communications revolution and the miniaturization of weaponry have leveled killing power in a terrifying way.

Having 13 carrier fleets and countless missiles and warheads no longer counts. Tiny gangs and groups, operating below the radar screen of normal warfare, can now sabotage or destroy with ease the most expensive and elaborate military hardware ever constructed; while determined bombers and suicide squads can penetrate the very heart of a society and paralyze it in a way that conventional weaponry can no longer do.

The American mistake goes back to the colossal erroneous assumption made after the 9/11 horror — namely that there was a "war" to be waged worldwide against terrorism and that various states would have to be either "for or against" this American-led crusade. Of course, there is no "war" in the conventional sense, and committing American backing to certain states as frontline allies merely guarantees that they will be destabilized.

The mistake is to believe that ideological Islamism, which has developed like a monstrous cancer out of the wise and balanced religious Islam of the past, can be beaten by Western power. It can't. As the late Benazir Bhutto shrewdly observed just before she died, fanatical and violent Islam "will have to play itself out."

What she probably meant was that the ideological and politicized versions of Islam being promoted by al-Qaida and others, and taught by ill-trained preachers in many mosques and cells in Western countries as well, will eventually show themselves as opposed to true Islamic values, and totally against the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet.

To bring that reversal about requires not declarations of war but the most subtle and patient respect for the true religion and its leaders. It is good news, for example, that Christian religious leaders in the Anglican and Catholic faiths are now meeting, on completely equal terms, with some of the most influential Muslim leaders. This is the way to the eventual marginalization of the fanatics. Patience is also needed to wait for the time when the inner groups of extremists turn against each other, as always happens in revolutionary movements.

Almost all leaders of al-Qaida will eventually meet violent deaths — probably at the hands not of the U.S. military but of rivals and former intimates. The central question of course is how long the world can wait for all this to happen.

In the 19th and 20th centuries there were agonizingly long periods of waiting while the worst and most lethal "isms" burned themselves out. Nazism lasted 15 years, other fascist doctrines longer, and hideous communism took 70 years to crumble into disaster.

In the faster-moving 21st century a guess would be that the crazed Islamic deviations now prevalent might blow themselves out in a decade. What is certain is that frontal American and Western attempts to wage "war" on the extremists, and to line up favorite leaders and states in this war, will actually prolong the struggle, weaken religious moderates and slow down the internal divisions in Islam.

That's one lesson Western strategists should learn out of respect for the brave lady who died in Rawalpindi so violently.
David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords (www.lordhowell.com).

Bush pretends to pressure Israel over 'negtiations'

Bush is starting to realise that Israel's settlement plans might be a problem. Pretty much all of the Arab world has been saying that for weeks now. Israel's position seems to be that the PA must do all of the heavy lifting first, and then Israel will live up to their side of the bargain. Their side of the bargain, however, comes with a strong dose of semantics. Illegal settlement will stop, if the PA follows through on their side, but Israel has simply re-defined much of the settlement activity as 'legal', since it involves Israel's "future territory".

In other words, the Palestinians must do everything Israel wants, and then Israel will do nothing that the Palestinians want, but they will promise to temporarily stop scheming to do more outrageous things in the future as long as the PA remains compliant and as long as it doesn't become attractive for Israel to break this promise.

This is not a sound basis for negotiations. But this has always been a sideline for Bush to push his obsession with bombing Iran. If the Arab world wants these 'negotiations' to continue, they had better come around to Bush's way of thinking about Iran, or the feeble pressure on Israel will cease.
This also is not a sound basis for negotiations. It's "lose-lose" for the Arabs. How could they refuse?

story from ha'aretz

Last update - 23:40 03/01/2008
Bush: Settlement expansion 'impediment' to peace
By Reuters

U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday called Israeli settlement expansion an "impediment" to the success of revived peace efforts and urged the Jerusalem to follow through on its pledge to dismantle unauthorized settler outposts.

Speaking less than a week before his first presidential visit to Israel and the West Bank, Bush voiced optimism at the prospects for securing an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal by the end of 2008, a goal set at last November's Annapolis conference that has been viewed with some skepticism.

Bush said he would use his trip to keep up pressure on both sides, including making clear to Israelis his concern about continued Jewish settlement activity.

"I will talk about Israeli settlement expansion, about how that is, that can be, you know, an impediment to success," in an interview at the White House with Reuters. "The unauthorized outposts for example need to be dismantled, like the Israelis said they would do."

Asked about Bush's comments, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said, "Israel is committed to meeting all our obligations under the road map and if the Palestinian side moves similarly on its commitments, I believe there is a real chance for substantive progress in the coming months."

Bush's trip follows a U.S.-hosted conference last month in Annapolis, Maryland, where Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pledged to try to forge a peace deal by the end of 2008.

"I feel good about it," Bush said when asked about the prospects for a deal by the end of this year.

He said such a timeframe "may not be a comfortable calendar for the two parties that actually have to negotiate the deal." But he added, "Both leaders ... understand this is a great opportunity to define a state and the fact that I'll be leaving office 12 months from now serves as a backstop."

Asked whether he would hold three-way talks with Abbas and Olmert during his visit, Bush said, "I don't know. It's not on the calendar now. But there will definitely be substantial talks with the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Bush also acknowledged that part of the reason for his January 8-16 Middle East trip is "absolutely" about efforts to contain Iran's influence in the region.

Bush said that on his trip, which starts in Israel and will include stops in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, he expects questions about a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate last month that said Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

"I will clarify to them that the NIE means that Iran is still a danger," he said.

Shadows on a bright picture in Iraq

The big question here is how the Iraqi government is going to merge the Sunni "good terrorists" into the increasingly-irrelevant Iraqi Army.
The security gains, tenuous as they are, have not come from the activities of the Iraqi Army. Remember, Bush's plan for the surge was that the Iraqi Army would "stand up", and the 30,000 surge troops were merely supposed to be supportive of their effort. Instead, the occupation troops have done much of the heavy lifting, while the Iraqi Army is in perpetual training mode. The "Concerned Citizens", which I call the "good terrorists" since they are among those that the surge was supposed to disarm and wipe out, are not loyal to the Iraqi government. This "awakening" strategy was a short-term fix, and it has only made the foes of the impotent federal government far stronger. The Iraqi Army, which has long suffered from profound "loyalty issues" itself, is now supposed to incorporate several thousands more of these Sunnis who have profound loyalty issues of their own. Is a regular paycheck supposed to turn these loyalty issues around?

Aside from that, the suspension of violence from one of the most powerful Shia militias will end as soon as it becomes practical to do so.

What is missed here in Lynch's assessment is the "Basra effect", where the Shia militias and criminal gangs have all but taken over Basra and is not being dealt with by the occupation troops. Lynch can no longer push this off on Britian, since they are gone. Basra, in fact, may very well turn out to be post-surge model for Iraq - not a case of bombings and ethnic cleansing, but of militia rule and fearful chaos.

But this, as Lynch says "is really a government of Iraq issue". We could have said that four years ago, and the result would probably have ended up the same. The surge was supposed to have allowed the Iraqi government to take over control of all of the provinces by November. Now it's a "ready or not, here it comes" proposition, and the country is a shambles. The newly-promised cuts in rations surely won't help things, either. The surge was supposed to leave a stable Iraqi government in its wake. Instead, it will leave the same feeble government it had at its start, only with fewer bombings for the time being.

story from The Daily Star

US general in Iraq 'optimistic but realistic'

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, January 04, 2008

Recent security gains that have led to a significant fall in violence in the last six months are still tenuous and could be reversed if Iraqis become disillusioned or if extremists mount a major attack, a top US commander in Iraq said Thursday. The cautionary statement came as violence flared across the nation, following a string of New Year attacks.

Violence has fallen by 60 percent since June, according to US military figures, and the government has been sounding upbeat. The country is notably calmer than it was at the same time last year, when there were fears Iraq was heading to all-out civil war.

"I'm very optimistic, but at the same time I'm very realistic. We have a tenuous security situation right now," Major General Rick Lynch, the commander of US forces south of Baghdad, said.

Extremists still carry out dozens of attacks each week.

Car bombs, suicide bombings, mortar attacks and kidnappings kill civilians and security forces alike, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq is still dominant in certain areas.

"The enemy's still out there," Lynch said during a visit to Salman Pak, a town about 25 kilometers southeast of Baghdad in a region known as the "Triangle of Death" where Al-Qaeda is still active. "My concern is when people begin to use words like defeat. We haven't defeated the enemy; we clearly have the enemy on the run. The main focus right now is Al-Qaeda."

The reduction of violence has been attributed to a combination of 30,000 extra US troops, a six-month cease-fire declared in August by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the work of predominantly Sunni tribal groups backed by the US military. The groups - more than 70,000-strong and growing fast - began turning against Al-Qaeda in Iraq in mid-2007.

Attacks in Lynch's area have fallen from about 25 a day before the summer to about six each day now, he said.

"But it is tenuous at best," he said. "On any given day, the security situation could go backward by some catastrophic attack, or by the local population not seeing continuing forward progress. So we just have to be sensitive about that. We have to focus on governance."

One of the issues is what will happen to the armed US-backed Sunni groups, which the military has dubbed Concerned Local Citizens, once security is restored to a point where they are no longer needed. The government has said it will integrate about a third of them into the mostly Shiite security forces.

"The other two-thirds we have to find productive work for," Lynch said.

The US has said that Iraq is matching the $155 million it has set aside to create jobs and provide vocational training for the fighters.

"This is really a government of Iraq issue," Lynch said. "They've got to think about 'how do we take all these productive citizens and compensate them for the work that they're doing?'"

Failure to provide useful employment for the fighters could lead them straight back into the insurgency, he warned.

"If indeed a concerned citizen is getting paid today and he's not getting paid tomorrow, there's a tendency of going back to doing bad things," the general said. "And I don't want that to happen."

The Shiite-run government shares these concerns and while acknowledging the work of the groups, it has been reticent to fully legitimize them.

A number of people were killed in a series of attacks in Iraq Thursday.

One attack targeted a local member of the prime minister's party, police said.

There were also reports that six Iraqi Army soldiers were killed and two were wounded while conducting joint operations with US forces against Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the village of Abu Nakhal, about 80 kilometers north of Baghdad.

The US military said it was looking into the report.

In the other incidents, three people were killed and 11 injured when a bomb planted at the house of a local member of the Dawa Party detonated at dawn in a Shiite-dominated area of southeastern Baghdad, a police official said on condition of anonymity.

The party member, who police did not name, was not at home when the bomb exploded, but a 13-year-old boy and a woman who was in a house next door were among those killed.

Additionally, three Iraqi civilians were killed by US military fire in two incidents on Thursday in the province of Diyala, one of the most dangerous regions in the country, Iraqi security officials said.

Two people died in the town of Al-Ghalibiyah, just west of the provincial capital Baquba, when a US patrol shot up their vehicle as it entered the main street from a side road while the convoy was passing, Iraqi Major Ziad al-Ani told reporters.

"It was in coincidence. The passing US military convoy thought the car was a hostile target and opened fire," said Ani.

In the other incident, US forces killed a civilian near a gas factory in the center of Baquba, said police Captain Muhannad al-Bawi, without giving further details. The US military said it was investigating the reports. - Agencies

comment policy, again

It seems as if the Chaudhary post has inspired several hateful and bigoted individuals to submit comments on the post.

These comments have been deleted, and will continue to be deleted.

As I have said before, the content of any comment published here must be on-topic and civil. I do not censor comments based on whether one agrees with me or not. I will not allow this blog to become a platform for hate speech, so the only one that will be exposed to your comments is myself, and only for the brief few seconds it takes me to delete it.

Dumb is the new smart in politics

This New Year's Eve I attended a small gathering at a longtime friend's home and got to hang out with some old friends and meet their new puppy. I look forward to this party every year not only because my longtime friend and his wife are gracious and wonderful hosts, but because the perennial guests include (Minnesota) State Senator Satveer Chaudhary and his vivacious and highly personable wife, Dee.

ABOVE: A sleepy Satveer and his charming and outgoing wife, Dee, in the wee, small hours of 2005.

Satveer is a Democrat, and in 2006 he waged a re-election campaign against a Republican candidate Rae Hart Anderson. Since I am an acquaintance of his, I followed the campaign and was exposed to Anderson's toxic rhetoric, of which her Christian Fundamentalist faith appears to be her main qualification for office. At debates, she would pace back and forth, gesticulating like a preacher and making sweeping assertions that require virtually no rational thought whatsoever, alternating between outraged snarls and beatific smiles. Satveer would remain calm and casual, mildly amused and confident. I had the chance during that election to talk to one of Mr. Chaudhary's constituents, a co-worker, about the race. Already dismissing Chaudhary as a "liberal", he predicted Chaudhary would "lose big". When I asked him why he made such a prediction, he rolled his eyes and said with a straight face, "He's smart, that's why", mouthing the word "smart" with a disdainful expression. What followed was an 'insightful discussion' into what makes an ideal Republican candidate, which I will paraphrase mercifully.

I had expected the usual complaints against Satveer, mainly that he was a Hindu and thus unqualified for public service in a "Christian nation". That was to be a factor, but not the deal-breaker. Rather, it was his intelligence and competence that marked him as an unfit candidate. "People want someone like them in office there", it was explained to me, as if I was a small child innocent in the ways of the world. Chaudhary was "smart" (insert scowl here), while Anderson had "common sense", which is a term Republicans use that roughly translates to 'dumb' in the rest of the world. True, Anderson was not big on facts and policy specifics; it was instead her outlook that she was selling. This would be nice if serving as a legislator was not the equivalent of a management position in the business world, where one is expected to make decisions affecting millions of people and multiple milllions of dollars on a regular basis. Like a management position, a legislator also has to deal with people who disagree with them while maintaining a professional demeanor. Thus, an arrogant attitude and firm grasp of Biblical scripture hardly seems to fit the bill. Surprisingly, when I asked my co-worker whether he felt he was qualified to be a state legislator, the response was heartily in the affirmative. His total lack of knowledge of Robert's Rules of Order (the language of the job), was easily dismissed. "That stuff is liberal bullshit designed to keep things from gettin' done", I was told. Likewise, the ability to read and comprehend reports, balance competing interests, and make decisions on subjects outside of your core competencies was also part of some liberal agenda that drove 'common sense' out of the public sector. "Put the money where it's supposed to go, and do the right thing", was this putative expert's summary of the job description.

I mention this at length precisely because it illustrates the Republican culture of anti-intellectualism and loyalty over competence that has produced the Bush Administration. Any idiot can govern or administer an Agency if they have 'common sense'. This anti-intellectual bent was one of Karl Rove's greatest (?) contributions to American campaign strategy. Ignorance thus becomes an asset, because it makes you similar to the people you represent. Arrogance is likewise the natural response to "smart" people with their fancy facts, analyses, insights, studies, and liberal penchant for treating complex matters as if they were complicated or something.

Arrogance was something Rae Hart Anderson (Chaudhary's opponent) had in spades. Rather than a concession call to Chaudhary as she "lost big", she instead sent an email advising Chaudhary to abandon his Hindu faith in favour of asking Jesus into his life. Yes, as if Chaudhary had never actually contemplated his beliefs or pondered over ethical or moral issues, Anderson stood ready to inform Satveer of an option he apparently was completely unaware of: Salvation through Jesus Christ. Obviously Satveer, with his public-school secondary education, his shallow Law School degree and successful completion of the Bar Exam, had simply never heard of the guy called Jesus and the awesome benefits of joining his Team into Eternity, Amen. Who could possibly criticise Anderson for sharing this vital information with a fellow human being? Common sense dictates that anyone who actually knew about Jesus' standing offer of salvation would jump at the chance, rather than be condemned to Hell.

Arrogance is also something that Chaudhary and his wife are devoid of, based on my experience. While being an order of magnitude more educated, wealthy, influential, and respected than myself, neither of them has ever treated me nor anyone in my presence as anything other than an equal. They have seen me drunk, endured my obnoxious behaviour, and experienced rants from my mouth that push the limits of coherent thought into bold new territory, which surely shows their capacity to deal with the average Republican. What impresses me more, however, is that neither of them is phony enough to tell me that my rants are insightful and valuable or that my behaviour is charming and apropos. It's as if we are all just people or something, and we can maintain our dignity without placing ourselves above others. To me, 'common sense' dictates not that someone has to be like me to represent me, but rather that they see that our interests coincide.
I don't want 'me' in government; I want someone smarter and more competent than me in government looking out for me.

Would you take your car to a mechanic who tells you, "I don't know a drive train from a freight train, but if the Lord Jesus wants your car to run, it will run, in His Glory". Would you go to a doctor who says, " I hear a lot of fancy talk about hemo-this and osteo-that, and all kinds of Latin flim-flammery from the so-called medical professionals, but nothing cures you better than a good dose of Scripture"? How would you feel about availing yourself of an attorney who says, "Well, I could make some motions and do some discovery and all kinds of legal mumbo-jumbo, but wouldn't you rather just put your case in the Lord's hands and let His Will be done"? Sure, none of these guys are smarter than you, and they might reflect your values, but can they do the job you are paying them for? Likewise, why would you elect a legislator that sees ignorance as a virtue and religious piety as a substitute for competence to manage the affairs of government?

I see this phenomenon with increasing frequency in Republican public discourse. Complex foreign policy matters are distilled into 'good guys vs. bad guys'. The role of the citizen is reduced to cheering for Our Team. Every problem has a simple answer, and it begins and ends with 'common sense'. Anyone that tells you things are more complicated than that is just trying to sell you "liberal hogwash", and talk radio even helpfully points out scapegoats for you so that you don't have to engage in rational thought. The right-wing blogs are rife with disdain for education, since it makes you unable to comprehend the glowing brilliance and wisdom of the ignorant.
In the end, ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, but it certainly is nothing to brag about, either.

Specter's visit to Syria opposed by the Decider

In an effort to do an end run around Bush's stalled, obstinate, and fruitless foreign policies, Sen. Arlen Specter will visit Syria for talks with President Assad and FM al-Moallem.
You may recall that back in late March, Speaker Pelosi did the same thing and was blasted by the White House.

"We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the (Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow through its borders to Iraq.
"I don't know what she is trying to accomplish, and I don't know if anyone in the administration has spoken to her about it," Perino said. "In general, we do discourage such trips."

But it's okay if Republican members of Congress "make such trips"? Well, not so much. As the Decider said a few days later:

"We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals," Bush said to reporters at the White House."

And now, per Fox News, the White House has "loud objections".

The essence of Bush's 'diplomacy' is that we will not talk to leaders unless they first do what we want, which kind of negates the point in "talking" in the first place. Syria attended the Annapolis conference in the belief that the Golan Heights would be on the agenda. It wasn't. The issue seems to be Lebanon, where Israel had thousands of troops until late September. That's understandable to Bush, however; it's Syria's "influence" over Lebanon that is the real evil. One can only wonder what Bush would do if there were a country on America's border that was in an almost-constant civil war for decades. Try to "influence" things, perhaps?
As usual, we're the "good guys", so the rules don't apply to us. They never have applied to Israel, who certainly exercises "influence" on the Occupied Territories. Meanwhile, Syria has picked up a heavy tab by taking in well over a million refugees of Bush's gloriously successful efforts in Iraq.

There is more to the job of "Leader of the Free World" than simply bellowing that your Will be Obeyed.

Cleaning up the mess in Iraq is the U.N's problem, and the mess in Lebanon in the U.N's problem, and the refugees from the Iraq occupation are Egypt's, Jordan's, and Syria's problem. The Decider decides which problems are his, and the ones that fail to offer significant glory fall to others.
We've tried Bush's approach with Syria, and the only way it will "work" is if we invade Syria and occupy it as we have done in Iraq and as we threaten to do with Iran. Perhaps Specter can get the ball rolling and get Israel to talk about the Golan Heights.

story from haaretz.com

Senator sees 'real opportunity' for resuming Syria-Israel talks
By The Associated Press

There is a real opportunity for Syria and Israel to resume peace talks with help from the United States, an influential U.S. lawmaker said Saturday.

Senator Arlen Specter spoke in Damascus shortly after arriving for a two-day visit with Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a member of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee.

"I think there is a very important moment in the Middle East and there is a real opportunity if the parties are ready to move," Specter told The Associated Press. "It's up to the parties. It's up to Syria and Israel, but the United States, I think, is in the position to be helpful."

Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, was scheduled to meet Syrian President Bashar Assad and Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem on Sunday to discuss the stalled Middle East peace process and strained U.S.-Syrian relations.

Specter, a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, declined to confirm reports that he would convey a message to Assad from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on resuming peace talks between the two countries. "I think that is something I should talk to President Assad about before I talk to the media," he said.

Specter, who met Olmert Wednesday, told reporters in Jerusalem that he would encourage Assad to launch peace talks with Israel.

He said he is convinced both countries want to restart a dialogue.

"Prime Minister Olmert told us that he's interested, that he's looking for a signal from Syria," he said.

In 2000, formal U.S.-sponsored Israel-Syria talks neared agreement but broke down over final border and peace arrangements.

Specter said Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad had told him on the sidelines of last month's Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, that Syria is interested in the negotiations.

Syria attended the U.S.-brokered Mideast conference after receiving assurances that the issue of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria after the 1967 Six Day War would be on the agenda.

Relations between Syria and the U.S. appeared to warm briefly following Syria's attendance at the Annapolis conference, which was widely seen as an attempt to gain favor with Washington.

But both sides have since lashed out at one another, each accusing the other of meddling in Lebanon, where the Western-backed government is locked in a political standoff with the pro-Syrian opposition.

The U.S. disapproves of Syrian meddling in Lebanon, Damascus' support for anti-Israel militant groups and its alliance with Iran.

Last week, U.S. President George W. Bush rejected dialogue with the Syrian leader, saying his patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago.

Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat, said he looked forward to speaking with Assad about promoting peace and stability with Syria's neighbor, saying he wants to see "free and fair elections in Lebanon ... full sovereignty for Lebanon."

The election of a new Lebanese president has been held up by continued political wrangling between the Syrian-backed opposition and the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority bloc. The presidency was left vacant after pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud's term ended on November 23, with no successor being elected.

South Korea cuts its Iraqi presence by nearly half

South Korea will continue to keep occupation troops in Iraq for the remainder of Bush's term.
Of course, these troops seldom even leave their base, so this is largely a symbolic gesture.
Even with this symbolic gesture, the force levels were cut by nearly half, from 1250 to 650.

story from Xinhua

ROK approves plan to extend troop deployment in Iraq

17:12, December 28, 2007

The South Korean National Assembly approved Friday the government's plan to extend South Korea's troop deployment in Iraq until the end of 2008.

It was the fourth straight year for South Korea to extend its troops mandate in Iraq since 2004, when South Korea extended mandate of its troops for one year at the request of the U.S. government.

Under the motion, submitted by President Roh Moo-hyun's administration in November, the number of South Korean troops in Iraq will be cut from the current 1,250 to about 650. About 600 troops have already returned home over the past few weeks.

Source: Xinhua

Iraq 'progress' now includes starvation

That beacon of prosperity, freedom, and democracy known as Iraq will soon get another valuable neocon lesson: starvation.

With a lack of safe drinking water, child malnutrition a serious problem, more than 40% of the population in absolute poverty and about half unemployed, and a cholera epidemic burdening the tattered shreds of what passes for a health care system, the obvious thing to do is to teach Iraqis a little self-reliance by starving them to death.

Half of those who receive food rations will no longer be eligible, and the quantities of food for those that still receive rations will be cut by half. And this comes after more than 30% cuts in those eligible for rations over the past three years.

Generally, Republicans can be counted upon to wring their hands in concern and wipe away tears as they contemplate what would happen to the poor, innocent Iraqi people should we withdraw. Yet, something like this gets a smiling thumbs-up. This is because Republicans abandoned the idea of Iraq being anything more than a failed state with Third-World metrics years ago. It's really all about Al-Qaeda now, and those crazy brown people who don't even worship the right God can die off for all they care. A few may come in handy for the requisite photos of smiling Iraqis embracing the beloved American troops, but the main thing is to boot out Al-Qaeda and keep a government in power that knows who the "boss" is. Besides, once Al-Qaeda is gone, everyone knows things will be great. After all, the Iraqis voted, didn't they?

It's pretty unfathomable to me how having another five million people in an unstable country with an unpopular government going without regular meals will help much. I guess this another one of those things that is the U.N's problem. We just deal in bombs and bullets these days.

"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.

There you go. The perfect neocon dream government. How could this plan possibly fail?


story from IPS

IRAQ: Saddam Provided More Food Than the U.S.
By Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail*

BAQUBA, Dec 27 (IPS) - The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.

The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.

Iraq's food rations system was introduced by the Saddam Hussein government in 1991 in response to the UN economic sanctions. Families were allotted basic foodstuffs monthly because the Iraqi Dinar and the economy collapsed.

The sanctions, imposed after Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait, were described as "genocidal" by Denis Halliday, then UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Halliday quit his post in protest against the U.S.-backed sanctions.

The sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children, and as many adults, according to the UN. They brought malnutrition, disease, and lack of medicines. Iraqis became nearly completely reliant on food rations for survival. The programme has continued into the U.S.-led occupation.

But now the U.S.-backed Iraqi government has announced it will halve the essential items in the ration because of "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation."

The cuts, which are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, have drawn widespread criticism. The Iraqi government is unable to supply the rations with several billion dollars at its disposal, whereas Saddam Hussein was able to maintain the programme with less than a billion dollars.

"In 2007, we asked for 3.2 billion dollars for rationing basic foodstuffs," Mohammed Hanoun, Iraq's chief of staff for the ministry of trade told al-Jazeera. "But since the prices of imported foodstuff doubled in the past year, we requested 7.2 billion dollars for this year. That request was denied."

The trade ministry is now preparing to slash the list of subsidised items by half to five basic food items, "namely flour, sugar, rice, oil, and infant milk," Hanoun said.

The imminent move will affect nearly 10 million people who depend on the rationing system. But it has already caused outrage in Baquba, 40 km northeast of Baghdad.

"The monthly food ration was the only help from the government," local grocer Ibrahim al-Ageely told IPS. "It was of great benefit for the families. The food ration consisted of two kilos of rice, sugar, soap, tea, detergent, wheat flour, lentils, chick-peas, and other items for every individual."

Another grocer said the food ration was the "life of all Iraqis; every month, Iraqis wait in queues to receive their food rations."

According to an Oxfam International report released in July this year, "60 percent (of Iraqis) currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

The report said that "43 percent of Iraqis suffer from absolute poverty," and that according to some estimates over half the population are now without work. "Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now."

While salaries have increased since the invasion of March 2003, they have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the prices of food and fuel.

"My salary is 280 dollars, and I have six children," 49-year-old secondary school teacher Ali Kadhim told IPS. "The increase in my salary was neutralised by an increase in the price of food. I cannot afford to buy the foodstuffs in addition to the other necessary expenses of life."

"The high increase in food prices led people to condemn the delays in the ration every month," Salah Kadhim, an employee in the directorate-general of health for Diyala province told IPS. "The jobless just cannot afford to buy food."

"The food ration still represents a big part of the domestic budget," Muneer Lafta, a 51-year-old employee at the health directorate told IPS. Without the ration, she said, families have to go to the market. Because Iraqi families are large, usually six to 12 people, shopping for food is simply unaffordable.

"I and my wife have five boys and six girls, so the ration costs a lot when it has to be bought," 55-year-old resident Khalaf Atiya told IPS. "I cannot afford food and also other expenses like study, clothes, doctors."

People in Baquba, living with violence and joblessness for long, are now preparing for this new twist.

"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.

Many fear the food ration cuts can spark unrest. "The government will commit a big mistake, because providing enough food ration could compensate the government's mistakes in other fields like security," a local physician told IPS. "The Iraq will now feel that he, or she, is of no value to the government."

(*Ahmed, our correspondent in Iraq's Diyala province, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East) (END/2007)

Afghans kick out two officials

story from naharnet

Afghanistan Orders U.N., European Officials Out

Afghanistan has ordered a top European Union official and a United Nations staffer to leave the country for threatening national security, government and diplomatic officials said Tuesday.
The two were declared persona non grata, apparently after allegations they had met with Taliban insurgents, a European diplomat said.

The office of President Hamid Karzai had at first announced at a press conference that the two, said to be British and Irish, had been arrested.

Spokesman Homayun Hamidzada later told AFP the pair, whom he did not identify, had been asked to leave the country. Another official said that two of their Afghan colleagues had been arrested.

"The foreign nationals have been declared persona non grata and their Afghan colleagues have been arrested and are being investigated," Hamidzada said.

He said his earlier statement that the pair were in custody was a "misunderstanding" but insisted that the government still believed they were a threat to national security.

A European diplomat said on condition of anonymity that the men had been given two days to leave, but the UN mission here said it was not aware of any deadline.

They had been accused of "having had contacts with the armed opposition out of the knowledge of the government," the diplomat said.

"Afghans claim they have documents proving these guys had contacts with the Taliban but have not given any proof," he said.

The U.N. mission said it was not sure on what basis the government had made the allegations.

"The government has not made clear its justification for this action and we are trying to clarify this misunderstanding," said spokesman Aleem Siddique.

"We have no reason to believe that there is any justification for such a request," he said. He said the U.N. official was a British national and that the EU staffer was an Irish national.

An Afghan foreign ministry official said the men were asked to leave because they had done something "not in their mandate."

Britain is one of the main countries helping war-torn Afghanistan get back on its feet after the ouster of the Taliban, who were toppled from government in a US-led invasion after the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Cases of Westerners allegedly involved in illegal activities related to national security have in the past been rare.

Jonathan "Jack" Idema, an American, left the country in June after spending almost three years behind bars here on charges of running a private jail and kidnapping and torturing Afghans.

Idema was sentenced to 10 years, which was later reduced to five. He was freed after receiving a pardon.
The ex-soldier said he was carrying out anti-terrorism operations in coordination with the U.S. Defense Department and Afghan authorities. Both governments denied the claim.

In December 2006, an aide to the then British commander of NATO troops in Afghanistan was arrested on charges of passing secrets to "the enemy", reportedly Iran.

Iranian-born Daniel James, 44, denied passing secrets to Iran. He is due to face trial in February.(AFP)


Beirut, 25 Dec 07, 16:57

Israel's "future territory"

Once again, Israel's clever use of semantics is being used to push settlements ahead.

It's not a settlement if the occupied land is what Israel calls "future territory".

This was Hitler's justification for occupying Eastern European countries, saying that the occupied territory was 'lebensraum', or "living space". Germany needed it to expand, so it was okay. Likewise, Israel needs the occupied territories to offer cheap housing to "pioneers", so it's okay if they build new settlements on their "future territory".

Doesn't the term "future territory" imply that it's not their territory at the moment?

Is stealing someone's car justified by re-defining it as your "future car"?

At least Israel is promising not to build settlements beyond it's "future territory"... at least until it needs more "future territory", one can hopefully assume. In the meantime, the Palestinians are supposed to shut up about this and accept Israel's promises, even though the settlements violate the road map they've already agreed to. But this is a new promise, so it's different than the old promise. Isn't it?

We certainly don't want to criticise Israel, the Eternal Victim State, by comparing its policies to that of Nazi Germany. One is unequivocally bad, and the other is unequivocally good, so it's different if Israel needs a little 'lebensraum'. Besides, the Palestinians are an 'inferior race', so it's justified.

For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the total area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude.
--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

And, no, I'm not supporting Hitler here. I'm pointing out the eerie similarity of Hitler's words to those of Israel's politicians. Certainly the settlement of the occupied territories will "enhance the area of the mother country", and will also make it more Jewish, which is a good thing in and of itself unless you are one of those who used to live in the "future territory".

story from aawsat.com

Israel Unveils Settlement Plans on Peace Talks Eve

23/12/2007

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel unveiled plans on Sunday to build hundreds of new homes on occupied land near Jerusalem next year, drawing protests from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the eve of renewed peace talks.

Israel also vowed no let up in its "real war" against Hamas Islamists who seized control of the Gaza Strip in June after routing Abbas's forces. Militants fire rockets from Gaza into southern Israel.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected the idea of any talks with Hamas over a possible ceasefire and Vice Premier Haim Ramon said Israel's strategic goal was to topple the group's government in Gaza using military and economic pressure.

The issue of Israeli settlement building in the Jerusalem area has clouded negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians announced at a U.S.-sponsored peace conference last month in Annapolis in the United States.

The first round of talks following Annapolis opened in discord with Palestinians demanding Israel drop plans to build some 300 new homes in an area near Jerusalem known to Israelis as Har Homa and to Palestinians as Abu Ghneim.

Ahead of a second round of talks scheduled for Monday, Israel's Construction Ministry unveiled a $25 million budget proposal for building 740 homes in two settlements in 2008.

The proposal, which must be approved by parliament, includes 500 homes at Har Homa and 240 at the Maale Adumim settlement near Jerusalem. Last year's ministry budget allowed for the construction of nearly 1,000 homes in the same two settlements.

"Har Homa is an integral part of Jerusalem and Israel will not stop building there," said Minister of Jerusalem Affairs Rafi Eitan.

"FUTURE TERRITORY"

Cabinet minister Yuli Tamir said Israel had a right to build houses "in those areas that are going to be included in its future territory," but ruled out building beyond that.

The Jewish state hopes to keep Maale Adumim and other large settlement blocs in any final peace deal with the Palestinians.

"Why is this settlement activity going on at a time when we are talking about a final (peace) deal?" asked Abbas, who is expected to meet Olmert as early as Tuesday.

Abbas and Olmert agreed in Annapolis to try to reach a statehood agreement by the end of 2008.

But Palestinian negotiators said substantive talks over borders and the fate of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees would not begin until Israel committed itself to halt all settlement activity, as called for under the "road map" peace plan.

Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, said Israel would abide by the road map by not allowing "outward growth" of existing settlements, by preventing new settlements from being built and by not confiscating any additional Palestinian land.

The road map also calls on the Palestinians to rein in militants, an obligation that Israel says must be fulfilled in the occupied West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip before a Palestinian state can be established.

Israel has killed more than 20 militants in Gaza in the past week as part of a stepped-up campaign to halt the rocket fire.

Hamas did not rule out a future ceasefire with Israel if the Jewish state first stopped attacks in Gaza. But Olmert told his cabinet "this war will continue" and that talks with Hamas would only be possible if it recognized Israel and renounced violence.

Olmert's cabinet on Sunday approved spending just over $200 million over the next five years to build an anti-rocket system meant to protect southern Israeli towns from rocket fire. The defense ministry estimates the system, called Iron Dome, will be operational in two-and-a-half years.

Success in Iraq requires imagination

Beyond the day-to-day violence in Iraq is the deeper danger posed by the strengthening of the sectarian militias in the effort to rout al-Qaeda. Much of the country is already divided into their respective ethnic groups. In Baghdad, walled and gated communities keep these groups from further ethnically-cleansing the city. And this is the basis of the "progress" that Gates cites.

The various "gangs" have already marked out their "turf", and Bush and Gates point to this as some kind of success. It is far from the prosperous beacon of stability and democracy that Bush crowed the invasion and occupation would bring. Did we really invade Iraq to bring a group of gang leaders to power and create a humanitarian crisis? Apparently this is what we will have to settle for. This is the dark "brilliance" of Bush's team: if you want the troops to come home, start calling whatever the situation is in Iraq a 'success', pretend it's what we intended all along, and give Bush the credit. Otherwise, we'll just have to stay there longer until we all admit that Bush is a great visionary with a great plan.

Oh, and don't mention Diyala. We've already labeled Diyala as 'pacified'. How did we do that? Well, it was brilliant. We divided the terrorists into "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists", and we set the "good guys" loose on the "bad" guys. Now, we don't count the "good" terrorists as terrorists anymore, which means the numbers of the terrorists have gone way down overnight. The "good" terrorists aren't loyal to the Iraqi government, and, sure, they continue to do the same things they did before we gave them our blessing, but this somehow makes the government more powerful. I know, you're wondering if the Iraqi Army won't just have stronger militias to tackle in order to really gain control, but...and this is the truly brilliant part...that's the Iraqi Army's problem. So you're not buying that, eh? I guess that you don't want the troops to come home, then. Don't you want to "win"? Okay, then. Start smiling about the "progress". Besides, those people that are dying are mostly Iraqis, and mostly civilians, so that's an improvement, isn't it?

story from the Daily Star

Gates: US troop levels to fall pending Iraqi gains

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Saturday, December 22, 2007

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates held out hope Friday that US forces in Iraq could continue a steady decline next year if security keeps improving - leaving a 100,000-strong force by year end. Gates' statement followed a day of scattered violence across Iraq and several attacks on celebrants of Eid al-Adha Thursday.

While Gates would not put a specific number on Iraq troop levels, he agreed a consistent reduction would leave 10 brigades - roughly 100,000 troops - soon after American voters go to the polls for the 2008 presidential elections.

There are currently 158,000 US troops in Iraq - the first brigade not to be replaced left this month.

Gates said the capacity of Iraqi forces to bear more of the security burden and the ability of the Iraqi government to run the country are the leading factors that will influence how quickly US forces can leave.

"My hope has been that the circumstances on the ground will continue to improve in a way that would - when General [David] Petraeus and the [senior commanders] do their analysis in March - allow a continuation of the draw-downs at roughly the same pace as the first half of the year," Gates said.

At a Defense Department news conference, Gates was cautiously optimistic about further troop reductions beyond those already planned, but said the US wants "to sustain the gains that we have already made."

In September, Gates raised the possibility that US troop levels could be reduced to 100,000, if conditions improved in Iraq.

On Friday, Gates said it was a lapse on his part to give an absolute number.

Current plans call for reducing the current 20 combat brigades to 15 by next summer. Gates said that could be pared to 10 by the end of 2008 if violence in Iraq continues to ebb.

Gates also criticized Congress' choppy funding for the wars. He said while the Pentagon welcomed the recent appropriation, it is less money than needed.

Congress recently provided $70 billion for combat operations, only half of what the President had requested.

Gates' fragile optimism followed an autumnal lull in violence in Iraq and particularly in Baghdad. But the regularity of violence across the war-weary nation is a grave reminder of enduring sectarian enmities.

A suicide bomber rammed his explosives-rigged minibus into a police station south of Baghdad and killed five people, including four policemen on Friday, security officials and medics said.

The attack took place at 2:00 p.m. at Al-Rasheed police station in the town of Yusifiyah, 25 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, security officials said.

Eight people were also wounded in the attack, including seven policemen.

A medic at Baghdad's Al-Yarmukh hospital confirmed the attack and said the wounded policemen had been admitted for treatment at the facility.

Separately on Friday, a British armored personnel carrier was hit by a "suspected" roadside bomb, a spokesman for the British said. There were no reports of casualties.

AP Television News footage showed the vehicle ablaze with thick, black smoke billowing from it. British troops could be seen securing the site.

A spokesman for the British military said there were no casualties and no injuries.

Friday's violence followed a series of attacks on Thursday targeting civilians celebrating the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which shattered the calm of an otherwise unusually peaceful holiday period in Iraq.

Authorities said 19 people were killed in the attacks, including a US soldier, after a suicide bombing northeast of the capital and a car bomb in Baghdad.

The car bomb, planted outside a liquor store in a heavily guarded part of central Baghdad, killed at least three people.

The suicide bomber struck in Kanaan, a Shiite-dominated town near the city of Baqouba in Diyala Province, about 60 kilometers northeast of Baghdad. He detonated his explosives as a US patrol was about to enter a building where a city council meeting was to be held, the US military said.

The US military said one soldier and five civilians were killed, and that 10 more soldiers and one Iraqi were wounded. However, local police and the hospital morgue in Baqouba said 13 people were killed. An official with the morgue, who asked not to be identified as he was not authorized to release the information, said one more person later died of his injuries, bringing the total to 14.

The assistant police chief of Kanaan, Waleed Mitieb al-Karkhi, said the dead included three children and two women.

Much of the day's violence was centered in Diyala province, where turbulence has been slower to subside than other parts of Iraq and which includes areas that the US military has never controlled. - Agencies