Once again it appears that the current neocon ninny regime in and around the White House does not know the difference between feces and shoe polish. Unfortunately, it comes as no surprise.
The current administration has an unsurpassed record at not knowing who or what the enemy in the Great Global War on Terrorism might be. Why shouldn't it keep up its distinguished record?
This time around is a clone of the first. Way back when, We the People thought the goal of military operations was the destruction of al-Qaeda and its sort-of-state sponsor, the Taliban of Afghanistan. With a whoop and a hollar off we went (in horribly insufficient force) as the Great Posse of Justice to bring in Osama and company dead or alive.
Before the posse had done much more than rearrange some real estate in Afghanistan and allow the heavyweights of both "criminal" organisations to head south of the border down Pakistan way, the name of the enemy changed. It wasn't Osama anymore. The new blackest of the black was Saddam Hussein.
A larger posse was formed. The evildoer was toppled, hunted down, interrogated, tried and convicted. Hung. Case closed!
Not bloody likely!
Leaving aside several intervening years, events and deaths, a new villain emerged. Actually, the blackturban had been there all along. For some reason that is too arcane for the Geek to grasp, it suddenly served the current administration to (again) announce his existence.
Enter Iran, skulking with a centrifuge under each arm and an evil grin above the several day growth of beard.
The nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic as well as its support of anti-Baghdad and anti-US elements in Iraq to say nothing of its general record as a regional troublemaker are all good and sufficient reasons for the US (and others) to see the mullahocracy as a clear and present danger to both national interests and global tranquility.
Ignoring for now the window of engagement opportunity offered by the Tehran government in the wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq which was idiotically slammed in the beards of the mullahs by the neocon ninnies, suffice it to say that adding Iran to the mix of unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan was ill-advised. No. It was blatantly boneheaded!
Equally gripless was the current administration's continued pretense that Pakistan was a full and effective ally in the Great Global War on Terrorism. Coddling the Islamists in Islamabad, in the Pakistani military, in the Inter Services Intelligence was somewhere between counterproductive and suicidal.
The net result of the shift in "Main Enemies" from the Taliban/al-Qaeda crew in Afghanistan to the Baathists of Iraq, when coupled with the initial failure to put enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan and wilful, continued denial that elements of both the Pakistani National Forces and ISI were complicit with the fugitive blackturbans in the mountains of FATA, was the regrowth of Taliban, the continuation and strenghtening of al-Qaeda and the emergence of a Pakistani version of Taliban as the de facto government in much of the FATA. That's real success.
For a long damn time now anyone and everyone with enough sense to know rocks roll down hill has acknowledged that there was only one way to eliminate the leadership cadre of al-Qaeda and the restrengthened refugee Taliban.
No. Not armed Predators, useful as those machines are. No. Not a major cross-boarder operation by US or Afghan National Forces. Too high visibility. Too complex logistically.
The way?
Employment of US Special Operation Forces in conjunction with CIA "pilot personnel" and their local agents. This approach has been sanctioned by doctrine and used effectively for many, many years.
CIA and other components of the US intelligence community have had highly qualified assets with full linguistic and cultural competence on the ground in the Afghanistan-FATA area of operations. The local agents are in place and (usually) capable. An indication of the pervasiveness and locally presumed effectiveness of the penetration is provided by the periodic reports (and videos) of the blackturbans "executing a US spy."
The special operations forces exist to go on into the mountains and valleys of the FATA and do the job. We the People now know that the plan for doing this has existed for months. We also know that the plan has been disapproved by the current administration.
The ostensible reason for this disapproval is fear of possible negative repercussions should the Pakistani government become aware of what we are doing. Or that the Pakistani government would not authorise our actions.
(See, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1214846804-MffwRuRYNt7YLQa7pOpq5w)
Oh? Really?
Cut to Iran.
Seymour Hersh who has a long and reasonably distinguished record for investigative reporting in national security affairs has published an account of the US clandestine operations underway in Iran from a base in western Afghanistan. His account appears in the current New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh/?yrail
American Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) assets have been and are being deployed into Iran with a view toward potentiating the efforts of "dissident" ethnic minorities and assisting in destabilising the mullahocracy. Congress has funded the effort to the tune of some four hundred megabucks.
In principle the Geek has no objections to making the mullahs' lives a tad more unpleasant. In practice, the way in which the current administration is seeking to go about the job is--being as kind as possible--wrongheaded.
The groups we are seeking to potentiate are neither reliable nor aligned with longer term US interests in Iran or the region. And, as history well demonstrates, simply funding private wars never brings much a positive national policy result.
Now, walk this through with your friendly tour guide, the Geekmo.
USSOCOM and CIA "pilots" are not numerous. The time and effort necessary to find, select and train such people is extensive. There just aren't that many of them--yesterday or today or tomorrow.
In short, you've got to use them where they will have the most effect, the most positive effect in the accomplishment of national goals. Informed assessments come together on one point.
The point?
Using our linguistically qualified, regionally experienced USSOCOM and intelligence personnel to clandestinely work in FATA is infinitely more likely to pay dividends than frittering them away on the neocon ninny ambition of "quiet" regime change in Iran.
It's way past time to get a grip on this reality. You have to focus on your enemy if you're going to defeat him.
Shifting targets means you miss them all.
Got that, Decider and Commander Guy?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Tehran Trumpet Blows Again!
The Iranians are hitting a new high in rhetorical overkill. If it wasn't so pathetically out to lunch, the latest from the Heroic Warriors of the Islamic Revolution would serve well as a bit on Comedy Central. Check it out. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61960§ionid=351020101.
Brigadier General Mir-Faisal Baqerzadeh, the Head of the Foundation for the Remembrance of the Holy Defense (which is mullahs' equivalent of Graves Registration in the US Army), assures the worried families of future American KIA's in Iran that the remains will be handled respectfully and rapidly. He stated, "The burial of slain soldiers will be carried out decently and in little time."
Makes me feel heaps better. Bet it does the same for you.
Apparently expecting to slaughter US and allied forces in truly awesome numbers, the laddybucks of the Foundation for the Remembrance of the Holy Defense are digging no fewer than 320,000 graves--between fifteen and twenty thousand in each of the Islamic Republic's border provinces.
Guacamole! What a fine gesture! To say nothing of an excellent example of military delusions of adequacy.
Considering that even the most bloody battles fought by US forces during World War II saw KIA and died-of-wounds percentages of less than ten percent, the Iranians must be expecting the US ground operation to embody more than three million troops. That would be troops in contact with or near the line of contact with hostile forces.
Fat chance!
It took the US nearly three years, a massive draft and the impetus of total war to put anywhere near that number of combat and combat support troops into the European Theater of Operations.
Do the Iranians really think they are worth that sort of attention?
Do the blustering folks of the Tehran regime and military believe that they are going to face a ground invasion?
If they do, it is time for them to get a grip.
Any effort against Iran will be limited to the air and sea. Ground forces, for whom the ever-so-solicitous brigadier has his people digging holes in the sand, will, perforce, be major non-participants.
An air campaign directed against as limited a target constellation as that comprising the Iranian nuclear effort will not be a pleasant flight with a tailwind both ways and air defenses shooting only chocolate bars. The assured reduction of the target will require exquisite planning and better execution with trans-strike damage assessment based on real-time intelligence and mid-flight retargetting.
The US can do that. If the decision is made. If the National Command Authority becomes convinced a nuisance abatement measure must be undertaken.
So, in high probability, can Israel. If the US provides the IFF for IAF aircraft overflying Iraq. If Turkey does the same. If the US provides intelligence particularly regarding Iranian air defenses. If the US provides electronic counter-measures and counter-counter measure support before, during and after the strike(s). If US combat air patrols provide cover during the insertion and exit portions of any Israeli strike.
A lot of ifs. Some of them are difficult. None are impossible.
Then there will be the Iranian reaction. It will come. No one should plan on the notion that the Iranian government or military will be so shocked and awed by airstrikes as to forgo the need for retaliation.
The direct Iranian capacity for retaliation by open military means hovers somewhere between nill and minimal. Consider the following exercise in pure bunkum from the Iranian Defense Minister. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61953§ionid=351020101.
PRESS TV quotes this brigadier, Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, as starting from the historical refuge of the militarily deficient power--celebrating the will and courage of the nation, the people of Iran and its military forces. Let's listen in--
And similar appeals to human willpower that ended dead on battlefields around the globe.
Now, take a good, hard look at this statement--
Sure. Right.
Then, brigadier Najjar, why does Iran want them? To become as "weak and desperate" as Israel? Russia? The Peoples Republic of China? The US?
The Geek is willing to grant that these latest examples of the Terrible Tehranian Temper Tantrum like all of their predecessors is directed at the domestic public. Even that they are directed at members of the Iranian armed forces.
The bragging and blustering may even be like the boast ritual of the Viking berserkers--an effort to develop and maintain courage on the eve of battle. To the Vikings, he who boasted most had to perform the best--even if he died in the process.
But, the Geek feels obliged to remind the guys at Braggadocio Central that one should never believe his own propaganda.
The daily warnings from Tehran have no inherent deterrent effect. The capacity to turn words to reality is not sufficient for that.
Iran can retaliate--and will. The retaliation will be indirect. It will come in the form of there hundred dollar a barrel oil. It will come as terrorist acts committed by proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and other, far more shadowy groups.
The retaliation will be unpleasant. Discommoding to all of us. It will forces changes on We the People far beyond those imposed by 9/11. It won't be pretty.
However, the Geek is of the view that, pretty or not, the changes imposed will not be all bad. Some will be good. Even very good for us a society, a polity, an economy.
Bet you don't believe the Geek. Do you?
Brigadier General Mir-Faisal Baqerzadeh, the Head of the Foundation for the Remembrance of the Holy Defense (which is mullahs' equivalent of Graves Registration in the US Army), assures the worried families of future American KIA's in Iran that the remains will be handled respectfully and rapidly. He stated, "The burial of slain soldiers will be carried out decently and in little time."
Makes me feel heaps better. Bet it does the same for you.
Apparently expecting to slaughter US and allied forces in truly awesome numbers, the laddybucks of the Foundation for the Remembrance of the Holy Defense are digging no fewer than 320,000 graves--between fifteen and twenty thousand in each of the Islamic Republic's border provinces.
Guacamole! What a fine gesture! To say nothing of an excellent example of military delusions of adequacy.
Considering that even the most bloody battles fought by US forces during World War II saw KIA and died-of-wounds percentages of less than ten percent, the Iranians must be expecting the US ground operation to embody more than three million troops. That would be troops in contact with or near the line of contact with hostile forces.
Fat chance!
It took the US nearly three years, a massive draft and the impetus of total war to put anywhere near that number of combat and combat support troops into the European Theater of Operations.
Do the Iranians really think they are worth that sort of attention?
Do the blustering folks of the Tehran regime and military believe that they are going to face a ground invasion?
If they do, it is time for them to get a grip.
Any effort against Iran will be limited to the air and sea. Ground forces, for whom the ever-so-solicitous brigadier has his people digging holes in the sand, will, perforce, be major non-participants.
An air campaign directed against as limited a target constellation as that comprising the Iranian nuclear effort will not be a pleasant flight with a tailwind both ways and air defenses shooting only chocolate bars. The assured reduction of the target will require exquisite planning and better execution with trans-strike damage assessment based on real-time intelligence and mid-flight retargetting.
The US can do that. If the decision is made. If the National Command Authority becomes convinced a nuisance abatement measure must be undertaken.
So, in high probability, can Israel. If the US provides the IFF for IAF aircraft overflying Iraq. If Turkey does the same. If the US provides intelligence particularly regarding Iranian air defenses. If the US provides electronic counter-measures and counter-counter measure support before, during and after the strike(s). If US combat air patrols provide cover during the insertion and exit portions of any Israeli strike.
A lot of ifs. Some of them are difficult. None are impossible.
Then there will be the Iranian reaction. It will come. No one should plan on the notion that the Iranian government or military will be so shocked and awed by airstrikes as to forgo the need for retaliation.
The direct Iranian capacity for retaliation by open military means hovers somewhere between nill and minimal. Consider the following exercise in pure bunkum from the Iranian Defense Minister. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61953§ionid=351020101.
PRESS TV quotes this brigadier, Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, as starting from the historical refuge of the militarily deficient power--celebrating the will and courage of the nation, the people of Iran and its military forces. Let's listen in--
Modern weapons are not the only defense criteria… The willpower and support of Iranians is very importantRight. And the Ghost Dance stops the white man's bullets. The "fury of the Francs" will overcome German machine guns.
And similar appeals to human willpower that ended dead on battlefields around the globe.
Now, take a good, hard look at this statement--
The Geek infers a uniquely Iranian calculus. The more nuclear weapons a country has, the weaker and more desperate it is.Israel will not be able to match Iran's defensive capabilities and has therefore launched psyops against Tehran.
He was referring to recent reports indicating that Israel has launched a military maneuver over the Mediterranean to rehearse for an aerial strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Najjar added that Tel Aviv is a 'mass producer of weapons of mass destruction' and such reports only signal its 'weakness and desperation'
Sure. Right.
Then, brigadier Najjar, why does Iran want them? To become as "weak and desperate" as Israel? Russia? The Peoples Republic of China? The US?
The Geek is willing to grant that these latest examples of the Terrible Tehranian Temper Tantrum like all of their predecessors is directed at the domestic public. Even that they are directed at members of the Iranian armed forces.
The bragging and blustering may even be like the boast ritual of the Viking berserkers--an effort to develop and maintain courage on the eve of battle. To the Vikings, he who boasted most had to perform the best--even if he died in the process.
But, the Geek feels obliged to remind the guys at Braggadocio Central that one should never believe his own propaganda.
The daily warnings from Tehran have no inherent deterrent effect. The capacity to turn words to reality is not sufficient for that.
Iran can retaliate--and will. The retaliation will be indirect. It will come in the form of there hundred dollar a barrel oil. It will come as terrorist acts committed by proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and other, far more shadowy groups.
The retaliation will be unpleasant. Discommoding to all of us. It will forces changes on We the People far beyond those imposed by 9/11. It won't be pretty.
However, the Geek is of the view that, pretty or not, the changes imposed will not be all bad. Some will be good. Even very good for us a society, a polity, an economy.
Bet you don't believe the Geek. Do you?
Friday, June 27, 2008
How It Goes--Good, Bad And Worse
Iraq has gotten a lot of msm coverage the past few days as the all-but-defeated insurgents sent the usual crew of martyrdom seekers with exploding belts and vehicles after the usual targets in the hopes of proving something.
"What?" You ask/exclaim.
One of the historical realities with on-the-ropes insurgent groups is the need to prove several things. All at once. Via high visibility attacks.
The first is the most obvious. The insurgents need to demonstrate that they still exist as credible forces with real bite left. This is the only way in which they can continue the absolutely central strategic task of demonstrating political will along with necessary collaterals including goosing up the flagging will of weakening supporters and hoping to strengthen the hand of those within the opposition who oppose a continuation of the counterinsurgency.
The second links closely with the first. By staging high profile attacks against predominantly non-military targets the blackhats hope to stir further war weariness among the uncommitted majority of the population which in turn will cause pressure on the government to end the fighting and dying.
The third is less a reason than a motive. By breaking things and killing people the insurgent leadership hopes to convince its own fighters that the fight is not lost. In short, to rebuild morale.
The recent spike in soft-target attacks by the Martyr Brigade reinforces the positive trajectories of other indicators regarding Iraq. The number of internal refugees is decreasing. Economic activity (of the legal sort) is increasing. Hostile initiated actions are decreasing. Baghdad's sway is growing.
The war isn't over by a long way and as commanders on the ground have noted, the increases of stability are tentative and fragile. This is what the insurgents hope to prove with the latest round of attacks: the stability is too fragile to continue.
Given that some of the insurgent leadership is anything but unaware of American domestic politics and considering that the external sponsor of at least some of the blackturbans (Iran, for those of you that like it spelled out) is quite au courant on US politics and politicians, it is not out of the question that there is some (realistic) hope that Iraq and the "failure" of the US in that country will resurface on the political scene. That reasoning is almost self-evident.
The question is not so much "if" but "when." When will enough coverage of enough suicide bombings stimulate the usual suspects in Congress and elsewhere to pronounce that the war has once more come a cropper and the only thing left for the US to do is put the troops on homeward bound flights.
Until at least some of the customary hand-wringers start the wail of "out now" the Geek is willing to bet hair that the bombings will continue. Ironically, Iraq is an example of a place and time where "news" is a powerful indicator of good policy results.
The msm have been unaccountably silent on a place where bad policy results are evident. The place is Syria. Well, to err on the side of accuracy the place is Lebanon-Syria.
Iran has been playing a crafty game with respect to its junior partner, Syria, as well as its more-or-less client, Hezbollah. Syria acting on both its own account and in tandem with Iran has maintained its military presence within Lebanon, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
There can be no disagreement with the contention that Syria has maintained and reinforced its ground combat units in Lebanon. Janes, the defense oriented British publisher, has the pictures to prove it. This link is to the Mideast Times which is free. Janes is pricey. http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/06/27/special_report_satellite_imagery_confirms_syrian_troops_in_lebanon/5047/1355~1214586002~1/
(It would be worth taking a walk around GoogleEarth to see if you can get the Janes' results. That's too much effort for the Geek.)
If Janes, using commercial satellite imagery, is able to find the Syrian Army facility, it is safe to assume that the US, Israel and other operators of advanced overhead systems are also aware that Damascus has been much less than forthcoming concerning its presence in and ambitions toward Lebanon.
It is an exercise in futility to debate whether the Syrians are in Lebanon as a counterweight to or a reinforcement of Hezbollah. Either way Syria stands ready, and in a good position, to pick up the chips if the once-upon-a-long-ago-time prosperous little region called Lebanon again dissolves into sectarian/political exsanguination.
It also gives Bashir Assad a nice bargaining chip in the off-chance that the US and/or Israel gets an attack of the serious regarding peace and prying Syria away from the Tehran orbit. There are several good reasons for the US to get off the neocon ninny deadstick of pretending Syria is too foul to talk with openly and candidly.
One reason is Iran. Is it in the better long-term interests of either the US or Israel or the region as a whole to allow, let alone invite, the unpleasant mullahocracy to establish a presence in Syria? A presence that once fully established will be harder to uproot than was that of the Soviet Union in Egypt.
It should be remembered that the building blown up first by the IAF and then by Syrian engineers was not a large indoor tennis court facility. Neither was it built with North Korean money. Follow the money. It leads to Tehran. Follow the interests in play. They lead to Tehran.
The second reason is Hezbollah. With outside backing from Tehran, Hezbollah has effectively taken over the government of Lebanon. It has also become the Iranian proxy director for another outpost of the mullahocracy. Hamas.
Hamas is a fact. An odious fact. It will not become less so unless and until its tie with Iran through Hezbollah is broken.
That is not the only reason that Hezbollah must be reduced in potency. It is a regional threat. Not simply a threat to Israel, but to Arab states. It should be noted that the Hezbollah Wallah In Charge of Foreign Affairs recently and not at all subtly threatened the life of the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon. Stop and consider the total lack of love lost between Iran and the House of Saud.
US policy toward Syria has been, charitably, bad. It may be too late for the current administration to mend its ways, but the next one had better take a long hard look at it.
Finally there is the matter of "worse." The name of the game is Afghanistan. Not to overstate the matter, Taliban is on a roll. A roll up victory hill.
It's not simply a matter of the friendly body count hitting a post-invasion peak. The problem is greater. Taliban is expanding its reach of operations into the eastern part of the country even as US, NATO and Afghan National Forces have penetrated successfully into southern and western regions previously dominated by Taliban and al-Qaeda.
The reasons for the great resurgence of Taliban are two. The first has been apparent since the failure of US forces in Tora Bora back in March 2002. Not enough boots on the ground.
The second reason has a name. Pakistan. As SecDef Gates noted pointedly yesterday, Pakistan has been (to put it as kindly as possible) deficient in its efforts to control the border areas--the FATA-- which provide ready hospitality and sanctuary to Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Of course there is a motive for the dilatory conduct of the Pakistani government both past and present. Islamists run the show. Not only are Islamists politically potent and willing to kill in pursuit of their political goals, the Army and intelligence service are riddled with them.
As there is no chance that the Pakistani government will take effective action to either control FATA or purge the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Islamists, there is little chance that Taliban and al-Qaeda will be looking for new quarters in the near future.
US policy with Pakistan has failed. The course of the "good" war in Afghanistan is not looking favorable. Since it is impossible to raise the bridge, we will have to lower the water.
This means that the current and next administration, with or without the help of NATO, will have to find the will and the means to put more boots on the ground. We will have to take the same risk of increasing the number of US personnel in body bags that we did in Iraq if we are going to retrieve the situation in Afghanistan.
Not pleasant. Not pleasant at all. But, as in Iraq, defeat is much, much worse.
"What?" You ask/exclaim.
One of the historical realities with on-the-ropes insurgent groups is the need to prove several things. All at once. Via high visibility attacks.
The first is the most obvious. The insurgents need to demonstrate that they still exist as credible forces with real bite left. This is the only way in which they can continue the absolutely central strategic task of demonstrating political will along with necessary collaterals including goosing up the flagging will of weakening supporters and hoping to strengthen the hand of those within the opposition who oppose a continuation of the counterinsurgency.
The second links closely with the first. By staging high profile attacks against predominantly non-military targets the blackhats hope to stir further war weariness among the uncommitted majority of the population which in turn will cause pressure on the government to end the fighting and dying.
The third is less a reason than a motive. By breaking things and killing people the insurgent leadership hopes to convince its own fighters that the fight is not lost. In short, to rebuild morale.
The recent spike in soft-target attacks by the Martyr Brigade reinforces the positive trajectories of other indicators regarding Iraq. The number of internal refugees is decreasing. Economic activity (of the legal sort) is increasing. Hostile initiated actions are decreasing. Baghdad's sway is growing.
The war isn't over by a long way and as commanders on the ground have noted, the increases of stability are tentative and fragile. This is what the insurgents hope to prove with the latest round of attacks: the stability is too fragile to continue.
Given that some of the insurgent leadership is anything but unaware of American domestic politics and considering that the external sponsor of at least some of the blackturbans (Iran, for those of you that like it spelled out) is quite au courant on US politics and politicians, it is not out of the question that there is some (realistic) hope that Iraq and the "failure" of the US in that country will resurface on the political scene. That reasoning is almost self-evident.
The question is not so much "if" but "when." When will enough coverage of enough suicide bombings stimulate the usual suspects in Congress and elsewhere to pronounce that the war has once more come a cropper and the only thing left for the US to do is put the troops on homeward bound flights.
Until at least some of the customary hand-wringers start the wail of "out now" the Geek is willing to bet hair that the bombings will continue. Ironically, Iraq is an example of a place and time where "news" is a powerful indicator of good policy results.
The msm have been unaccountably silent on a place where bad policy results are evident. The place is Syria. Well, to err on the side of accuracy the place is Lebanon-Syria.
Iran has been playing a crafty game with respect to its junior partner, Syria, as well as its more-or-less client, Hezbollah. Syria acting on both its own account and in tandem with Iran has maintained its military presence within Lebanon, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
There can be no disagreement with the contention that Syria has maintained and reinforced its ground combat units in Lebanon. Janes, the defense oriented British publisher, has the pictures to prove it. This link is to the Mideast Times which is free. Janes is pricey. http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/06/27/special_report_satellite_imagery_confirms_syrian_troops_in_lebanon/5047/1355~1214586002~1/
(It would be worth taking a walk around GoogleEarth to see if you can get the Janes' results. That's too much effort for the Geek.)
If Janes, using commercial satellite imagery, is able to find the Syrian Army facility, it is safe to assume that the US, Israel and other operators of advanced overhead systems are also aware that Damascus has been much less than forthcoming concerning its presence in and ambitions toward Lebanon.
It is an exercise in futility to debate whether the Syrians are in Lebanon as a counterweight to or a reinforcement of Hezbollah. Either way Syria stands ready, and in a good position, to pick up the chips if the once-upon-a-long-ago-time prosperous little region called Lebanon again dissolves into sectarian/political exsanguination.
It also gives Bashir Assad a nice bargaining chip in the off-chance that the US and/or Israel gets an attack of the serious regarding peace and prying Syria away from the Tehran orbit. There are several good reasons for the US to get off the neocon ninny deadstick of pretending Syria is too foul to talk with openly and candidly.
One reason is Iran. Is it in the better long-term interests of either the US or Israel or the region as a whole to allow, let alone invite, the unpleasant mullahocracy to establish a presence in Syria? A presence that once fully established will be harder to uproot than was that of the Soviet Union in Egypt.
It should be remembered that the building blown up first by the IAF and then by Syrian engineers was not a large indoor tennis court facility. Neither was it built with North Korean money. Follow the money. It leads to Tehran. Follow the interests in play. They lead to Tehran.
The second reason is Hezbollah. With outside backing from Tehran, Hezbollah has effectively taken over the government of Lebanon. It has also become the Iranian proxy director for another outpost of the mullahocracy. Hamas.
Hamas is a fact. An odious fact. It will not become less so unless and until its tie with Iran through Hezbollah is broken.
That is not the only reason that Hezbollah must be reduced in potency. It is a regional threat. Not simply a threat to Israel, but to Arab states. It should be noted that the Hezbollah Wallah In Charge of Foreign Affairs recently and not at all subtly threatened the life of the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon. Stop and consider the total lack of love lost between Iran and the House of Saud.
US policy toward Syria has been, charitably, bad. It may be too late for the current administration to mend its ways, but the next one had better take a long hard look at it.
Finally there is the matter of "worse." The name of the game is Afghanistan. Not to overstate the matter, Taliban is on a roll. A roll up victory hill.
It's not simply a matter of the friendly body count hitting a post-invasion peak. The problem is greater. Taliban is expanding its reach of operations into the eastern part of the country even as US, NATO and Afghan National Forces have penetrated successfully into southern and western regions previously dominated by Taliban and al-Qaeda.
The reasons for the great resurgence of Taliban are two. The first has been apparent since the failure of US forces in Tora Bora back in March 2002. Not enough boots on the ground.
The second reason has a name. Pakistan. As SecDef Gates noted pointedly yesterday, Pakistan has been (to put it as kindly as possible) deficient in its efforts to control the border areas--the FATA-- which provide ready hospitality and sanctuary to Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Of course there is a motive for the dilatory conduct of the Pakistani government both past and present. Islamists run the show. Not only are Islamists politically potent and willing to kill in pursuit of their political goals, the Army and intelligence service are riddled with them.
As there is no chance that the Pakistani government will take effective action to either control FATA or purge the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Islamists, there is little chance that Taliban and al-Qaeda will be looking for new quarters in the near future.
US policy with Pakistan has failed. The course of the "good" war in Afghanistan is not looking favorable. Since it is impossible to raise the bridge, we will have to lower the water.
This means that the current and next administration, with or without the help of NATO, will have to find the will and the means to put more boots on the ground. We will have to take the same risk of increasing the number of US personnel in body bags that we did in Iraq if we are going to retrieve the situation in Afghanistan.
Not pleasant. Not pleasant at all. But, as in Iraq, defeat is much, much worse.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Iranians Are SO Boring
Here they come again! The bravos of bluster out of Tehran. Frothing threats and flailing with words, the talking heads of the mullahocracy are out to scare us--again.
(For the whole deal you can take a look at, http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0806254400112829.htm or the Fars News Agency (assuming you want to keep with the Iranian perspective at http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8704050745 or from the folks at CNN there is, http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.nuclear/)
The most recent blather is fired by Majlis Speaker (and former nuclear negotiator) Ali Larijani. His salvo of dire predictions included an echo of International Atomic Energy Authority chief Mohammed AlBaredi's warning that a military strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities would ignite a "ball of fire."
The hardline opponent of the current Orator-in-Chief went on with a dire warning. "There is little chance for interaction. You have reached the final minutes of your defeated game."
Oh, really?
There are problems galore in the US, in the West, but they ain't nothing compared to what you and your fellows in Tehran are facing. (In case these have eluded your keen eye, Speaker Larijani, they include hyper-inflation, negative growth, capital flight and an ever escalating unemployment rate.)
None of these difficulties will be solved by the new round of enhanced sanctions imposed by the European Union. Perhaps you know that Mr Larijani. Or, perhaps, like your political foe, Ahmendinejad, you think the Hidden Imam or the upcoming Mahdi will pull your collective nuts out of the fire of your making.
Consider this fine piece of thinking--
Speaker, it is simple. Even an ideologue such as yourself ought to be able to get a grip on this reality: If you don't grab at the carrot, you're going to get a bash from the stick.
The Speaker offered the Iranian version of carrot-and-stick. After nearly breaking his arm patting his back for the Iranian proposal to have wide ranging (that is to say completely unfocused) discussions on a lengthy list of issues, Larijani grabbed the stick. Waved it,
"Do not add to the cost you should pay with making wrong assessments." Or so IRNA quoted the Speaker. A few moments later, Larijani clarified his meaning. "You know that your wrong strategies in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan have borne not fruit, but hatred. The little chance for interaction with Iran requires rational and constructive signs."
Let's examine that statement for a second. The mullahocracy, as Larijani damn well knows, supported the US led take-down of Taliban. The mullahocracy, again as Larijana must personally remember, reacted to the US invasion of Iraq with an outreached hand proposing talks, cooperation and other goodies. He also must know from personal experience that the mullahs ordered a (temporary perhaps) stand-down of the nuclear weapons program as noted by the National Intelligence Estimate released late last year.
That leaves Lebanon. Considering that the primary mixers and troublemakers in that long unsettled country are Iran's good buddy, Syria, and client, Hezbollah, the question of success or failure, love or hatred can't be answered in the US or the EU but only in Tehran.
The US and Western view of Iran's nuclear ambitions has been "rational and constructive." The combinations of sanctions and offered inducements have been "rational and constructive."
The problem does not rest with the West, with the US, with the EU, or even with Israel. The problem comes with Iran. With Iran's actions. With Iran's rhetoric. With Iran's policies.
None of these are both "rational and constructive." All are, in the words of an early giant of the Cold War, George Kennan, "primitive and unconstructive."
(For the whole deal you can take a look at, http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0806254400112829.htm or the Fars News Agency (assuming you want to keep with the Iranian perspective at http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8704050745 or from the folks at CNN there is, http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.nuclear/)
The most recent blather is fired by Majlis Speaker (and former nuclear negotiator) Ali Larijani. His salvo of dire predictions included an echo of International Atomic Energy Authority chief Mohammed AlBaredi's warning that a military strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities would ignite a "ball of fire."
The hardline opponent of the current Orator-in-Chief went on with a dire warning. "There is little chance for interaction. You have reached the final minutes of your defeated game."
Oh, really?
There are problems galore in the US, in the West, but they ain't nothing compared to what you and your fellows in Tehran are facing. (In case these have eluded your keen eye, Speaker Larijani, they include hyper-inflation, negative growth, capital flight and an ever escalating unemployment rate.)
None of these difficulties will be solved by the new round of enhanced sanctions imposed by the European Union. Perhaps you know that Mr Larijani. Or, perhaps, like your political foe, Ahmendinejad, you think the Hidden Imam or the upcoming Mahdi will pull your collective nuts out of the fire of your making.
Consider this fine piece of thinking--
Larijani also criticized big powers for sending a package of proposals to Iran on one hand and imposing new financial restrictions against the country, on the other.Well, duh, maybe because the Iranian response to the P5+1 proposals reeked of taqiyya to say nothing of the fine old game of stall, stall, stall. Keep 'em talking while we keep our centrifuges spinning.
"If you are willing to hold talks with Iran over the proposed package then why you have adopted a confrontational approach before the package was studied."
Speaker, it is simple. Even an ideologue such as yourself ought to be able to get a grip on this reality: If you don't grab at the carrot, you're going to get a bash from the stick.
The Speaker offered the Iranian version of carrot-and-stick. After nearly breaking his arm patting his back for the Iranian proposal to have wide ranging (that is to say completely unfocused) discussions on a lengthy list of issues, Larijani grabbed the stick. Waved it,
"Do not add to the cost you should pay with making wrong assessments." Or so IRNA quoted the Speaker. A few moments later, Larijani clarified his meaning. "You know that your wrong strategies in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan have borne not fruit, but hatred. The little chance for interaction with Iran requires rational and constructive signs."
Let's examine that statement for a second. The mullahocracy, as Larijani damn well knows, supported the US led take-down of Taliban. The mullahocracy, again as Larijana must personally remember, reacted to the US invasion of Iraq with an outreached hand proposing talks, cooperation and other goodies. He also must know from personal experience that the mullahs ordered a (temporary perhaps) stand-down of the nuclear weapons program as noted by the National Intelligence Estimate released late last year.
That leaves Lebanon. Considering that the primary mixers and troublemakers in that long unsettled country are Iran's good buddy, Syria, and client, Hezbollah, the question of success or failure, love or hatred can't be answered in the US or the EU but only in Tehran.
The US and Western view of Iran's nuclear ambitions has been "rational and constructive." The combinations of sanctions and offered inducements have been "rational and constructive."
The problem does not rest with the West, with the US, with the EU, or even with Israel. The problem comes with Iran. With Iran's actions. With Iran's rhetoric. With Iran's policies.
None of these are both "rational and constructive." All are, in the words of an early giant of the Cold War, George Kennan, "primitive and unconstructive."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
In English We Call It Lying
There is an Arabic word with which everyone should be familiar. The word is taqiyya. It means to dissemble, to fabricate, to evade by artful deception.
In short, it means to lie.
Taqiyya is not only permissible, it is both obligatory and laudable when used to defend Islam or Muslims against non-believers. Lying joins killing on the list of Islam approved behaviors--provided the target is an infidel.
Shia Islam takes taqiyya a step further. As Shia has long been (or at least seen itself as) a persecuted minority within the larger Muslim community, the use of taqiyya against Sunnis is justified by the needs of the faith.
The Geek apologises for being so professorial. The reason for this step-by-step foundation laying will be obvious in just one moment.
Taqiyya is the reason that Iranian protestations of nuclear innocence must raise more than an eyebrow of disbelief. The Tehran assertions must be rejected as the taqiyya they are.
The latest proof, if any is needed that the Iranians are lying through their beards when they say, "All we want is a few nuclear kilowatts," comes from the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, writing in today's International Herald Tribune. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/24/opinion/edmiliband.php)
Miliband reminds us that the West, specifically the P5+1 (or as he puts it diplomatically, the E3 plus 3) two years ago offered the Iranians a very sweet deal that would have met their expressed desire for nuclear electrical generation capacity while assuring that no bomb would be made as a "byproduct."
The mullahocracy rejected the proposal.
The latest P5+1 offering is a slightly improved version of the one of two years ago. The apparent hope of the diplomats behind the offer was that the economic and social degradation suffered by Iran over the past two years coupled with the promise of more sanctions, more rigorously imposed and enforced, would make the deal more attractive.
The response from all levels of the Tehran regime has been more taqiyya administered with slightly more bluster than before.
Wow! That was sure a hard one to predict.
In case anyone is unclear as to what the P5+1 offered (as some who post on the most "progressive" blog sites apparently are), here is Miliband's (quite accurate and succinct) outline.
Nuclear weapons.
And, get a grip on this: Nuclear weapons are what the Iranian regime wants. Period.
It doesn't matter if the economy goes further down the tubes. If more capital flees the Shia Paradise. It doesn't matter if unemployment and its inevitable companion--internal turbulence--continues to climb.
The regime believes that it can buy enough time to get the Big Bang it so feverishly has worked, schemed and sacrificed to obtain. Buy enough time economically through evading the sanctions. Buy enough time by exploiting the cash flow from not only oil but the remittances of expat workers and Iranian owned companies. Oliver Gutta gives a very good assessment of this in http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/06/23/_irans_ability_to_avoid_sanctions/6180/.
Internally, the regime is relying on its security forces to keep enough of a lid on the internal dissent to maintain stability. True, the local cops may ignore crime as illustrated in this piece( http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/06/23/iran_revealed_tehrans_taxi_driver_bandits/9755/
But, the ever vigilant eye of the state won't overlook a woman wearing Western clothing or a man with a "Western" haircut (whatever that means.) There are more than a few stories on this, one will do. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/16/mideast/16dresscode.php.
By focusing on these so called "Western" subversions, the regime can accomplish a pair of linked goals. Provide an out-group suitable for public hating (a favorite of all autocratic regimes under threat.) Reinforce the notion that Iran is surrounded and constantly under threat. (So quit your unpatriotic bitching about unavailable/unaffordable food or insufficient pay or no job in sight.)
At the same time the regime hopes to buy time internationally by using the time honored techniques of taqiyya. The mullahocracy did not reject the P5+1 offer--exactly. Neither did they accept it.
They used a variation of Trotsky's approach to the Germans during the early days of the Bolshevik Revolution--neither peace nor war. No treaty but no fighting.
The Tehran regime assured the world that it would respond to the offer in the fullness of time. The regime allowed as how further discussions might be possible within the context of larger issues such as the absurd package of unlinked items it presented to the EU a few weeks back.
At the same time the mullahs and their talking heads in government stated categorically that ending the enrichment program was unacceptable.
The combination might be just enough artful deception, evasion and deeply shaded truth to give hope to those who want peaceful pastures instead of looming fields of mushroom clouds. A characterisation that fits most of us in the West.
Buy time. If the Iranians can buy a little time, they can hope for a change in US policy. The emergence of a more accommodating American administration. We must remember that in the view from Tehran, the US is the Main Enemy (to use old Soviet terminology.) A less hostile US could well mean that the rest of the P5+1 would be even more irresolute than they have been to date. http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0806241487192839.htm
Buy time. If the Iranians can buy a little more time, they can hope to gain one of the seats on the UN Security Council that is up for a vote in the General Assembly shortly before the US elections. By having a voice on the "inside" the mullahs can reasonably hope to cause a decent case of havoc in the Council.
By time. If the Iranians can buy enough time, they will finish enough of their centrifuge cascade array to actually enrich uranium to the level necessary for a bomb. At that point the mullahs calculate they will effectively neutralise through deterrence any potential existential threat to the country.
Or, perhaps the mullahocracy has more spacious ambitions than merely deterring an existential threat. The world will know the answer to that when--and if--the Iranians crank out sufficient highly enriched uranium or separate and concentrate enough plutonium for a few bombs.
One thing we can be damn sure of though is any protestations of peaceful intent is simply another big dose of taqiyya.
In short, it means to lie.
Taqiyya is not only permissible, it is both obligatory and laudable when used to defend Islam or Muslims against non-believers. Lying joins killing on the list of Islam approved behaviors--provided the target is an infidel.
Shia Islam takes taqiyya a step further. As Shia has long been (or at least seen itself as) a persecuted minority within the larger Muslim community, the use of taqiyya against Sunnis is justified by the needs of the faith.
The Geek apologises for being so professorial. The reason for this step-by-step foundation laying will be obvious in just one moment.
Taqiyya is the reason that Iranian protestations of nuclear innocence must raise more than an eyebrow of disbelief. The Tehran assertions must be rejected as the taqiyya they are.
The latest proof, if any is needed that the Iranians are lying through their beards when they say, "All we want is a few nuclear kilowatts," comes from the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, writing in today's International Herald Tribune. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/24/opinion/edmiliband.php)
Miliband reminds us that the West, specifically the P5+1 (or as he puts it diplomatically, the E3 plus 3) two years ago offered the Iranians a very sweet deal that would have met their expressed desire for nuclear electrical generation capacity while assuring that no bomb would be made as a "byproduct."
The mullahocracy rejected the proposal.
The latest P5+1 offering is a slightly improved version of the one of two years ago. The apparent hope of the diplomats behind the offer was that the economic and social degradation suffered by Iran over the past two years coupled with the promise of more sanctions, more rigorously imposed and enforced, would make the deal more attractive.
The response from all levels of the Tehran regime has been more taqiyya administered with slightly more bluster than before.
Wow! That was sure a hard one to predict.
In case anyone is unclear as to what the P5+1 offered (as some who post on the most "progressive" blog sites apparently are), here is Miliband's (quite accurate and succinct) outline.
Our aim is clear: We simply want to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It is not regime change in Tehran. The new deal is also clear. It includes specific proposals to assist Iran to acquire everything it needs for a modern nuclear power industry, including technological and financial assistance, legally binding fuel supply guarantees and cooperation on radioactive waste.Objectively, this is a good offer. Hard to improve on. Lacks only one little detail--
It also includes an offer from all E3+3 foreign ministers - which includes the United States - to sit down and talk if Iran suspends its nuclear enrichment activities. And it covers a long list of other potential benefits, from greatly improved political contacts and cooperation to steps towards normalizing trade, economic and energy relations, and agricultural, aviation and development assistance.
Nuclear weapons.
And, get a grip on this: Nuclear weapons are what the Iranian regime wants. Period.
It doesn't matter if the economy goes further down the tubes. If more capital flees the Shia Paradise. It doesn't matter if unemployment and its inevitable companion--internal turbulence--continues to climb.
The regime believes that it can buy enough time to get the Big Bang it so feverishly has worked, schemed and sacrificed to obtain. Buy enough time economically through evading the sanctions. Buy enough time by exploiting the cash flow from not only oil but the remittances of expat workers and Iranian owned companies. Oliver Gutta gives a very good assessment of this in http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/06/23/_irans_ability_to_avoid_sanctions/6180/.
Internally, the regime is relying on its security forces to keep enough of a lid on the internal dissent to maintain stability. True, the local cops may ignore crime as illustrated in this piece( http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/06/23/iran_revealed_tehrans_taxi_driver_bandits/9755/
But, the ever vigilant eye of the state won't overlook a woman wearing Western clothing or a man with a "Western" haircut (whatever that means.) There are more than a few stories on this, one will do. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/16/mideast/16dresscode.php.
By focusing on these so called "Western" subversions, the regime can accomplish a pair of linked goals. Provide an out-group suitable for public hating (a favorite of all autocratic regimes under threat.) Reinforce the notion that Iran is surrounded and constantly under threat. (So quit your unpatriotic bitching about unavailable/unaffordable food or insufficient pay or no job in sight.)
At the same time the regime hopes to buy time internationally by using the time honored techniques of taqiyya. The mullahocracy did not reject the P5+1 offer--exactly. Neither did they accept it.
They used a variation of Trotsky's approach to the Germans during the early days of the Bolshevik Revolution--neither peace nor war. No treaty but no fighting.
The Tehran regime assured the world that it would respond to the offer in the fullness of time. The regime allowed as how further discussions might be possible within the context of larger issues such as the absurd package of unlinked items it presented to the EU a few weeks back.
At the same time the mullahs and their talking heads in government stated categorically that ending the enrichment program was unacceptable.
The combination might be just enough artful deception, evasion and deeply shaded truth to give hope to those who want peaceful pastures instead of looming fields of mushroom clouds. A characterisation that fits most of us in the West.
Buy time. If the Iranians can buy a little time, they can hope for a change in US policy. The emergence of a more accommodating American administration. We must remember that in the view from Tehran, the US is the Main Enemy (to use old Soviet terminology.) A less hostile US could well mean that the rest of the P5+1 would be even more irresolute than they have been to date. http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0806241487192839.htm
Buy time. If the Iranians can buy a little more time, they can hope to gain one of the seats on the UN Security Council that is up for a vote in the General Assembly shortly before the US elections. By having a voice on the "inside" the mullahs can reasonably hope to cause a decent case of havoc in the Council.
By time. If the Iranians can buy enough time, they will finish enough of their centrifuge cascade array to actually enrich uranium to the level necessary for a bomb. At that point the mullahs calculate they will effectively neutralise through deterrence any potential existential threat to the country.
Or, perhaps the mullahocracy has more spacious ambitions than merely deterring an existential threat. The world will know the answer to that when--and if--the Iranians crank out sufficient highly enriched uranium or separate and concentrate enough plutonium for a few bombs.
One thing we can be damn sure of though is any protestations of peaceful intent is simply another big dose of taqiyya.
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference--
Gets it wrong again! The combination of arrogance and tunnel vision demonstrated at the recently concluded 35th meeting of the OIC Foreign Ministers is one more example of the destructive influence of hyper-focus on Islam as a political/religious identity.
The meeting, as has been previously noted, took place in Uganda. Among the subjects considered, as posted yesterday, was a plea by a coalition of Islamic human rights groups to the effect that the OIC could not continue to be silent in the face of the "killing and suffering" of "millions of Muslims" at the hands of "Black Africans." The coalition was disingenuous in its characterisation of events in the Darfur region of the Sudan.
Sudan is a majority Muslim country with approximately seventy percent of its population being Sunni. These are primarily concentrated in the north. The minuscule Christian population is found in or near the capitol of Kharthoum. Darfur is populated by a mixture of "indigenous" faith subscribers and Muslims.
It is not a surprise that the OIC ignored the human rights coalition's plea. The Sudanese government, which includes Muslims and non-Muslims alike, is sufficiently Islamic to fall under the protective blind eye which the OIC and its members routinely turns toward violence which is strictly or predominantly Muslim-on-Muslim.
The OIC passed a resolution on Sudan. It called for negotiations (yawn) and pointed the Flying Middle Finger of Blame at one rebel group and "outsiders" seeking to put pressure on the Sudanese government. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200806/FOR20080623b.html.
As far as the OIC is concerned, Sudan goes in the same category as Somalia. Let Muslim kill or displace Muslim and Allah will sort it all out in the end. We at the OIC have more important matters to handle.
More important than states foundering in waves of blood?
You bet.
There's those cartoons. Those damn Danes and their Freedom of Speech Fetish.
Consider, http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/topic_detail.asp?t_id=1156.
Speaking of "principled" positions, consider the other truly awesome example of arrogance, of delusions of adequacy coming out of the ole OIC. Unfortunately this aspect of the recently concluded meeting has been overlooked by the msm.
It shouldn't be. (The matter hasn't been ignored by some web newsletters. You can see, for example, http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11577911/ or for a little fuller coverage and more quotes there is Cyber News Service at, http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200806/FOR20080623a.html
It is an indicator of the shape of international politics to come. The OIC is demanding that any restructuring of the UN Security Council done in a way which does not take into full and effective account the fact that Muslims constitute one fifth of the human race will be opposed. There are several plans being mooted about for the reconstitution of the Security Council, but none currently provide for the maximal Muslim goal.
That goal?
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said this month that Islamic countries must secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council because “the Islamic world has been deprived of the power to defend itself."
Yeah. Right.
It seems that Iran has been doing a darn good job of "defending" itself against the Security Council in the contest over its uranium enrichment program. Other Islamic countries such as pre-2003 Iraq and pre-2002 Afghanistan have also done very well in the defend-against-the-Security-Council game.
Just last week, during the same time frame as the OIC was cranking up its bitch over not being adequately represented in the Security Council (despite the fact that Islamic countries get their shot at being elected to the reserved regional seats for the Mideast and Asia) the representatives of Egypt, Iran and Pakistan made a travesty out of the UN Human Rights Council meeting as they pressured the Council's president into issuing a gag order preventing all critical mention of sharia. This was defense of a sort. An objectionable sort.
The Geek has long been of the view that some sort of restructuring of the Security Council might well be in order. While not particularly enamored of any of the currently mooted plans, he is happy that discussion is open.
A discussion would be unacceptable that contains either a dilution of the current veto power held by the five permanent members (such as would be the case by adding a Muslim veto) or an ending the right of veto held by the five.
It is not that the Geek is notably Islamophobic. He is equally opposed to admitting India or for that matter Germany or Japan to the Veto Wielders' Club. Nor is the Geek unaware of how often and how counterproductively the veto has been employed to block arguably collective interests in order to serve the agenda of a single permanent member.
On the whole the five permanent members use of the veto has been functional. Barely so on occasion, but still functional. It has forced not only the more effective building of coalitions and even consensus, it has also provided for the effective explorations of alternatives which might otherwise have been left unknown territory.
The US might well consider the relative importance of the UN to it and it to the UN. Way back in the beginning, back in San Francisco over sixty years ago, a number of small countries protested the Great Power veto. The US representative ostentatiously ripped a copy of the UN Charter in half. It was a clear message. The world could have a UN with the Great Power veto intact--or it could learn to live without a UN.
The choice was clear. It was made. Correctly.
In the course of the next administration we may well be faced with the same choice. It must be made clearly. And correctly.
The meeting, as has been previously noted, took place in Uganda. Among the subjects considered, as posted yesterday, was a plea by a coalition of Islamic human rights groups to the effect that the OIC could not continue to be silent in the face of the "killing and suffering" of "millions of Muslims" at the hands of "Black Africans." The coalition was disingenuous in its characterisation of events in the Darfur region of the Sudan.
Sudan is a majority Muslim country with approximately seventy percent of its population being Sunni. These are primarily concentrated in the north. The minuscule Christian population is found in or near the capitol of Kharthoum. Darfur is populated by a mixture of "indigenous" faith subscribers and Muslims.
It is not a surprise that the OIC ignored the human rights coalition's plea. The Sudanese government, which includes Muslims and non-Muslims alike, is sufficiently Islamic to fall under the protective blind eye which the OIC and its members routinely turns toward violence which is strictly or predominantly Muslim-on-Muslim.
The OIC passed a resolution on Sudan. It called for negotiations (yawn) and pointed the Flying Middle Finger of Blame at one rebel group and "outsiders" seeking to put pressure on the Sudanese government. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200806/FOR20080623b.html.
As far as the OIC is concerned, Sudan goes in the same category as Somalia. Let Muslim kill or displace Muslim and Allah will sort it all out in the end. We at the OIC have more important matters to handle.
More important than states foundering in waves of blood?
You bet.
There's those cartoons. Those damn Danes and their Freedom of Speech Fetish.
Consider, http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/topic_detail.asp?t_id=1156.
Well, considering facts, something that the OIC does only when it is in the interests of Islam, the Danish court's finding is correct. Not that this minor consideration slowed down the Islamic group.A spokesman of the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia today in a statement expressed disappointment and dismay at the decision of the Western High Court of Aarhus in Denmark that the publishing of offensive cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005 and reprinted earlier this year by 17 other Danish newspapers was not illegal under Danish law on the ground that terror acts were carried out in the name of Islam.
The spokesman reiterated the principled position of the OIC and that of the OIC member states that terrorism had no connection with Islam or with any other religion and that its proponents were the common enemy of entire international community , He added that the linkage drawn by the Danish Court between Islam with terror to legalize the printing of the offensive cartoons and causing widespread insult to the sentiments of the Muslims was most unfortunate and that it could create a precedent for exacerbation of Islamophobia.Crank up the old noise machine, please. But, while you are at it, would you be so kind as to explain why the OIC has no difficulty finding Islam compatible with the eternal exsanguinations in Somalia and Sudan?
Speaking of "principled" positions, consider the other truly awesome example of arrogance, of delusions of adequacy coming out of the ole OIC. Unfortunately this aspect of the recently concluded meeting has been overlooked by the msm.
It shouldn't be. (The matter hasn't been ignored by some web newsletters. You can see, for example, http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11577911/ or for a little fuller coverage and more quotes there is Cyber News Service at, http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200806/FOR20080623a.html
It is an indicator of the shape of international politics to come. The OIC is demanding that any restructuring of the UN Security Council done in a way which does not take into full and effective account the fact that Muslims constitute one fifth of the human race will be opposed. There are several plans being mooted about for the reconstitution of the Security Council, but none currently provide for the maximal Muslim goal.
That goal?
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said this month that Islamic countries must secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council because “the Islamic world has been deprived of the power to defend itself."
Yeah. Right.
It seems that Iran has been doing a darn good job of "defending" itself against the Security Council in the contest over its uranium enrichment program. Other Islamic countries such as pre-2003 Iraq and pre-2002 Afghanistan have also done very well in the defend-against-the-Security-Council game.
Just last week, during the same time frame as the OIC was cranking up its bitch over not being adequately represented in the Security Council (despite the fact that Islamic countries get their shot at being elected to the reserved regional seats for the Mideast and Asia) the representatives of Egypt, Iran and Pakistan made a travesty out of the UN Human Rights Council meeting as they pressured the Council's president into issuing a gag order preventing all critical mention of sharia. This was defense of a sort. An objectionable sort.
The Geek has long been of the view that some sort of restructuring of the Security Council might well be in order. While not particularly enamored of any of the currently mooted plans, he is happy that discussion is open.
A discussion would be unacceptable that contains either a dilution of the current veto power held by the five permanent members (such as would be the case by adding a Muslim veto) or an ending the right of veto held by the five.
It is not that the Geek is notably Islamophobic. He is equally opposed to admitting India or for that matter Germany or Japan to the Veto Wielders' Club. Nor is the Geek unaware of how often and how counterproductively the veto has been employed to block arguably collective interests in order to serve the agenda of a single permanent member.
On the whole the five permanent members use of the veto has been functional. Barely so on occasion, but still functional. It has forced not only the more effective building of coalitions and even consensus, it has also provided for the effective explorations of alternatives which might otherwise have been left unknown territory.
The US might well consider the relative importance of the UN to it and it to the UN. Way back in the beginning, back in San Francisco over sixty years ago, a number of small countries protested the Great Power veto. The US representative ostentatiously ripped a copy of the UN Charter in half. It was a clear message. The world could have a UN with the Great Power veto intact--or it could learn to live without a UN.
The choice was clear. It was made. Correctly.
In the course of the next administration we may well be faced with the same choice. It must be made clearly. And correctly.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Some Humans' Rights Are More Important Than Others
A coalition representing the human rights groups of Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Mauritania, Kuwait, Palestine and Saudi Arabia are upset. In fact, doggone it, they are really, really upset.
This time it's not about the plight of the besieged inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. No siree. Not this time. Nor are they perturbed about the poor Iraqis groaning under the heel of the American occupation. Nope. Not this time.
The coalition demanded that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference meeting in Kampala, Uganda DO SOMETHING about the "killings and sufferings of millions of Muslims in Darfur." The combined human rights groups stated, according to AFP, "The Islamic world must decide to end its wall of silence, before it is too late ... More silence could be catastrophic on the Islamic community." http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRaXY64EALx_dgu0xU9_4KIfpiqw
The Geek acknowledges that life in the Darfur region of Sudan is unpleasant and dangerous to the max. He does not take exception with the dire warnings of an impending food crisis for the region brought about by the combination of violence and the rise of global food prices. Several sites give this coverage. http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-7FUKY2?OpenDocument. Or for a less agenda driven view but one which has an African slant, http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnMCD255717.html. Or, a little less subjective there is, http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/22/africa/AF-GEN-Sudan-Darfur.php
Get a grip on this. The human rights coalition is disturbed so mightily because, as in the case of the Gaza Strip and (in their view) Iraq, the "killing and suffering" of Muslims is at the hands of non-Muslims. In Darfur, as the Muslim human rights wallahs make clear, the villain is the Black government of Sudan. A non-Islamic bunch to be sure.
The "killing and suffering" of Muslims as the result of presumed or actual non-Muslim actions is apparently completely reprehensible to these exemplars of human rights concerns.
They are unbothered by the killing and suffering of Muslims as a result of Muslim actions.
Witness the coalitions complete silence on matters in neighboring Somalia. Somalia is Islamic, specifically Sunni Muslim. It is (or at least has been) a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Somalia is in the middle of a war even longer and bloodier than the one going on in Darfur. Starvation is just as rampant--if not more so.
Uganda (remember that is where the OIC is currently meeting and where the human rights coalition made their plea regarding Darfur) has furnished a couple of thousand troops for the failed African Union peacekeeping force. Ugandan troops were found a month ago to have furnished guns and other weapons to their coreligionists, members of the Islamist hardline entity, the Council of Islamic Courts, which is the heart and soul of the internal war.
The CIC partisans and others of an equally hardline stripe, no less than the non-Muslim Ethiopian "peacekeepers" supporting the Transitional National Authority, have been up to their beards in atrocities and unjustifiable killings. While Islamic governments have been front and center at denouncing the Ethiopians, silence has reigned regarding the similar conduct of Muslim Ugandans. The worthies of the Islamic states have also been silent regarding the documentable charges of Ugandan arms sales to the OIC and affiliated crews.
The UN Security Council has answered the request of the African Union to take over the peacekeeping functions in Somalia with a reluctant, "Yes." Considering the history of the last UN attempt at peacekeeping and humanitarian relief back in the early Nineties, the reluctance is quite understandable.
The UN peacekeepers, who just celebrated their Sixtieth Anniversary among a welter of charges regarding sexual abuse by blue beret wearing personnel in numerous countries, are already overstretched, poorly coordinated, badly supported and officered by what seem all too often to be the most rank of amateurs. Contingents from some 120 member states are to be found within the many operations currently being conducted by the UN.
It will be awhile, maybe a long while, before an effective (or, more likely, an ineffective) UN presence will appear on the ground in Somalia. Be that as it may, the Islamists are wasting no time.
The AP reports (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gKOtmEruZ32U-yU3e-6meqQNf7LwD91FAPN80) that a video purportedly from al-Qaeda has been posted on the web. It calls for Muslims, particularly those in Somalia, to resist any UN peacekeeping force. Presumably such resistance will be no more considerate of civilian non-combatants caught in the midst of battle or ambush then has been the case to date.
Where are the Muslim human rights advocates on this one? Where is the OIC?
They are too busy condemning Danish cartoons, Dutch videos, Israeli defensive actions, or the presence of Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to be bothered by Muslim-on-Muslim "killing and suffering." Not even the usual rhetorical denunciations of violence were invoked this time.
As far as the coalition of "human rights" advocates is concerned, the only humans whose rights matter are Muslims.
And, then, only if those rights are threatened by non-Muslims.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
This time it's not about the plight of the besieged inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. No siree. Not this time. Nor are they perturbed about the poor Iraqis groaning under the heel of the American occupation. Nope. Not this time.
The coalition demanded that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference meeting in Kampala, Uganda DO SOMETHING about the "killings and sufferings of millions of Muslims in Darfur." The combined human rights groups stated, according to AFP, "The Islamic world must decide to end its wall of silence, before it is too late ... More silence could be catastrophic on the Islamic community." http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRaXY64EALx_dgu0xU9_4KIfpiqw
The Geek acknowledges that life in the Darfur region of Sudan is unpleasant and dangerous to the max. He does not take exception with the dire warnings of an impending food crisis for the region brought about by the combination of violence and the rise of global food prices. Several sites give this coverage. http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-7FUKY2?OpenDocument. Or for a less agenda driven view but one which has an African slant, http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnMCD255717.html. Or, a little less subjective there is, http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/22/africa/AF-GEN-Sudan-Darfur.php
Get a grip on this. The human rights coalition is disturbed so mightily because, as in the case of the Gaza Strip and (in their view) Iraq, the "killing and suffering" of Muslims is at the hands of non-Muslims. In Darfur, as the Muslim human rights wallahs make clear, the villain is the Black government of Sudan. A non-Islamic bunch to be sure.
The "killing and suffering" of Muslims as the result of presumed or actual non-Muslim actions is apparently completely reprehensible to these exemplars of human rights concerns.
They are unbothered by the killing and suffering of Muslims as a result of Muslim actions.
Witness the coalitions complete silence on matters in neighboring Somalia. Somalia is Islamic, specifically Sunni Muslim. It is (or at least has been) a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Somalia is in the middle of a war even longer and bloodier than the one going on in Darfur. Starvation is just as rampant--if not more so.
Uganda (remember that is where the OIC is currently meeting and where the human rights coalition made their plea regarding Darfur) has furnished a couple of thousand troops for the failed African Union peacekeeping force. Ugandan troops were found a month ago to have furnished guns and other weapons to their coreligionists, members of the Islamist hardline entity, the Council of Islamic Courts, which is the heart and soul of the internal war.
The CIC partisans and others of an equally hardline stripe, no less than the non-Muslim Ethiopian "peacekeepers" supporting the Transitional National Authority, have been up to their beards in atrocities and unjustifiable killings. While Islamic governments have been front and center at denouncing the Ethiopians, silence has reigned regarding the similar conduct of Muslim Ugandans. The worthies of the Islamic states have also been silent regarding the documentable charges of Ugandan arms sales to the OIC and affiliated crews.
The UN Security Council has answered the request of the African Union to take over the peacekeeping functions in Somalia with a reluctant, "Yes." Considering the history of the last UN attempt at peacekeeping and humanitarian relief back in the early Nineties, the reluctance is quite understandable.
The UN peacekeepers, who just celebrated their Sixtieth Anniversary among a welter of charges regarding sexual abuse by blue beret wearing personnel in numerous countries, are already overstretched, poorly coordinated, badly supported and officered by what seem all too often to be the most rank of amateurs. Contingents from some 120 member states are to be found within the many operations currently being conducted by the UN.
It will be awhile, maybe a long while, before an effective (or, more likely, an ineffective) UN presence will appear on the ground in Somalia. Be that as it may, the Islamists are wasting no time.
The AP reports (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gKOtmEruZ32U-yU3e-6meqQNf7LwD91FAPN80) that a video purportedly from al-Qaeda has been posted on the web. It calls for Muslims, particularly those in Somalia, to resist any UN peacekeeping force. Presumably such resistance will be no more considerate of civilian non-combatants caught in the midst of battle or ambush then has been the case to date.
Where are the Muslim human rights advocates on this one? Where is the OIC?
They are too busy condemning Danish cartoons, Dutch videos, Israeli defensive actions, or the presence of Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to be bothered by Muslim-on-Muslim "killing and suffering." Not even the usual rhetorical denunciations of violence were invoked this time.
As far as the coalition of "human rights" advocates is concerned, the only humans whose rights matter are Muslims.
And, then, only if those rights are threatened by non-Muslims.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)