Saddam's Willing Executioners

I can't believe they beat another dead horse in order to allude some false sense of security or, in Bush's own words, "a milestone for Iraq" (which it isn't). And from the looks of it, Saddam's execution is more or less a ticking time bomb, which, when triggerred, could spark more conflict and chaos in war-torn Iraq. I have no sympathy for the ex-dictator of Iraq who killed at least a hundred thousand Kurdish innocents and tens of thousands of Sunnites and Shiites... Wait. I shouldn't be distinguishing between the Iraqis that he united under his tyrannical rule, as all were in equal danger of being executed by his death squads.

Then again, I'm not happy or jumpy either. It sickened me to many degrees to see people actually celebrate the death of Saddam Hussein. I mean, I can understand that a now defunct dictator is no longer alive, but to celebrate on the death of someone makes those Iraqis and Americans who celebrated over his stinking rotting corpse as bad as those radical "Izlamizts" who allegedly celebrate over the deaths of innocents and soldiers alike. To me, the act of Saddam's execution was more about revenge than justice, for if it was justice, we wouldn't have sectarian attitudes being thrown about all around, and a sectarian government installed by the Coalition that continues to carve up Iraq into more slices than can ever be cut on a family-sized pizza. The execution was not a productive move, especially since it occurred on the first day of Eid Al Adha before sunrise. Perhaps the Iraqi court didn't want Saddam to have a grab at the sweets and candy that people usually pass out to others during this time of love and forgiveness (Eid, that is). This is a day that Muslims worldwide come together and thank God for all His Bounties that He bestowed upon this Earth. It was supposed to be a beautiful day. And they started it out with the hanging of a ruthless dictator.

The fact that it was carried out on Eid Al Adha of all days will make it appear as an insult to Muslims who oppose the Coalition's neo-colonialist occupation of Iraq, as it is just one of many ploys employed by the Coalition to further stamp on the heritage of Iraq, as I explained in an earlier post. However, Saddam was in Iraqi custody, not American custody, so it was the Iraqi government, not the Coalition, that killed him. But let's remind ourselves who really is governing Iraqi politics for the time being, not that the Coalition really does at the moment, but the fact that this is an occupation makes this argument all the more convincing. The trial itself was a farce that signalled nothing but the continuation of the American occupation in Iraq, and the continuing humiliation of Iraqis nationwide, Sunni and Shiite.

Saddam was discredited as a dictator who was the reason behind the sectarian strife that we see today in Iraq. What we see today is an oversimplification of the issue, as Sunnites and Shiites were actually more united under Saddam: in fear, that is. This civil strife was only recently started by the Coalition in as political and militaristic a way as possible, seeking to divide Iraqis starting with the Charter that was drafted out by that neocon who calls himself a "Muslim", Zalmay Khalilzad. According to the late Issam Nashashibi,

Khalilzad's impeccable credentials make him a natural for membership in the neo-conservatives cabal which is the driving force behind Washington's Iraq policy. "He has a narrow of view of the Middle East and South Asia," his former associate stressed. "[Zalmay thinks of] security to the exclusion of everything else. He tends to look at military solutions as the first, not the last policy option."

Of course, that was just a tip of the iceberg: Zalmay wasn't the only person behind the machinations of the Coalition that divided the Iraqis. The point is that Saddam, while a ruthless dictator, did not incite strife at all, but merely killed those who dissented against him, and this is NOT an attempt to justify the monstrous actions of a man like him.

Even more ironic is that people have forgotten the Coalition's active role in the past to install Saddam in power: after all, Saddam was the CIA's man in Baghdad. According to John Collins,

Conveniently carried out just five minutes past the hour when "Anderson Cooper 360" goes on the air, the execution provided an opportunity for viewers to think about the long story of the Iraqi leader's brutal reign. Yet when it came to informing the audience about one key aspect of that history - the role of the United States in helping to create and maintain the "butcher of Baghdad" - CNN offered only amnesia.

It amazes me that Palestinians and other Iraqis and Arabs are actually mourning the death of Saddam Hussein. And then there's Libya's president, Muammar Ghaddhafi (who can't be helped by a mental hospital), offerred several days of mourning for the dictator. That comes months after he said that Britian and America must try Saddam. I can understand why many Palestinians love Saddam, mainly because he was the most vocal Arab leader to talk about unifying the Arabs against Israel and spoke of "freeing Palestine"; any rational person would know that this is nothing but empty rhetoric. Anyways, John Collins further notes that

In the rush to celebrate the death of the "butcher of Baghdad," we are up to our necks in all three types of denial. The failure to provide a full account of this horrifying chapter of Iraqi and American history is, to be sure, an act of literal denial. If two leaders shake hands, but the photo is not shown on CNN, did they really shake hands? One is reminded of the oft-quoted statement by an anonymous New York Times staff member: "If the Times wasn't there, it didn't happen."

Of course, the facts about the U.S. role in Saddam's brutality are not always literally denied, and this is where the second and third types of denial come into play. No doubt in the coming days we will hear numerous commentators attempt to "spin" the facts, as has often happened in discussions of U.S. ambassador April Glaspie's famous "green light" to Saddam just before Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It wasn't really a green light, we'll be told. Yes, it was a handshake, but that doesn't mean it was an endorsement of Saddam's policies.

The boldest (and, one must add, the most honest) defenders of U.S. policy will employ the language of implicatory denial, insisting, when pressed, that U.S. support for Saddam was justified under the circumstances. We'll be told that the realities of the Cold War, or the struggle against the threat posted by the Iranian revolution, or the need for maintaining U.S. access to cheap fossil fuels, created a context in which the U.S. had no choice but to get its hands dirty.

In this light, it seems that the initial coverage of Saddam's execution has served as a collective ritual hand-washing designed to reassure Americans that they really are the blameless leaders of a cosmic struggle against "evil." And so the answer to the existential question comes into view. Today's mainstream journalism, even "live" TV, is a far cry from the first draft of history. Instead, it functions largely as a transmission of selective history that has been drafted--and airbrushed, and sanitized, and rearranged, and distorted--long before it ever reaches our eyes and ears.

The hypocrisy already stinks like rotten fish.

Another thing: why was Saddam only tried for the Dujail killings? Why didn't they try him for the gassing of the Kurds and the killing of many Sunnite dissidents and clerics who opposed him? Why did they try him only for the killing of Shiites, not that their lives are unimportant?

But let's be honest: Saddam's execution will not heal the already unstable condition that Iraq is in at the moment, and that's not the only thing that grinds my gears. It's just an example of justice gone awry. I'm reminded of the brand of justice that Thrasymachus, a Greek notable, who argued that

Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger

In this case, the "stronger" is the Coalition that is occupying Iraq. I could think of many figures who should've joined Saddam in the gallows, most notably Bush, Blair and Sharon (along with many Coalition and Israeli military officials who have blood on their hands). I am especially angered at the Coalition's deception of the international public and how they entered Iraq under false pretenses.

Bottom line: Saddam's life is not worth the lives of innocents who might die as a result of sectarian strife that might ensue as a result of this execution. The death of another dictator who was installed by the American government, and who speaks empty promises of restoring pan-Arab nationalism (of which I am an ardent critic of), amounts to the beating of a dead horse. It will most likely add more salt to the wound of Iraq, which will need more than just a united Iraqi effort to restore the nation. I'd like to say that I have hope for this country, but it saddens me to say that I've lost most of that hope when I see the Iraqi public opinion divided over many matters, of which Saddam was an unexpected determinant of shaping this public opinion. I think, however, that if Iraqis wake up and realize that they're being disunited in a mess, thanks in part to the sectarian government and the Coalition, they would rise up and deport the Coalition, and overthrow the government in order to establish a government for a united Iraq. Saddam's execution was just an assertation of the fact that the Iraqis will suffer from imperialist occupation and neocon chickenhawk stupidity for who knows how long.

This is hard coming from someone who has lost almost all hope for this Cradle of Civilization, but I'd like to take a moment of silence... not for the petty dictator called Saddam, but for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who sufferred as a result of this farcical war, and I pray, with you, in these sacred days of Eid Al Adha, a time of forgiveness, love and compassion, for the safety of the people of Iraq, the hopefully eventual unification of the people of Iraq, and justice for the people of Iraq... especially against those who seek to sow discord and increase bloodshed amongst Iraqis and humanity in general.

Saracen

Yawwwn... The Arab World Hates the U.S. Government More than Ever

Great... Now, tell me something I don't know for a change. I mean, who would expect this coming? Ever since the beginning of the war on Iraq, we thought that the Iraqi people would greet the Coalition troops with flowers and candy, though I hate to say that the Iraqis saved those flowers for other purposes. This is due to the worsening conditions in the nation, with increasing violence and a deployment of "divide and conquer" tactics on part of the Coalition. Then, of course, the elections came around, but those didn't curb the increasing violence that ensued afterwards. One could only hope that this civil strife doesn't conflagrate to nearby MidEastern nations... God, I hope not.

Anyways, two organizations, Zogby International (owned by Arab-American James Zogby) and United Press International (owned by some other guy I don't know), published two separate polls which show that Arab distrust of the U.S. government has increased. This is nothing new, really: Al Jazeera published many polls like this before... not that this is anything new. But with the recent war on Lebanon and the increasing raids in Gaza that go unabashed, the American government remains blind to the Arab public that it supposedly wants to help. For this alone, we can see why Arabs would hate the U.S. government even more than they did before. Zogby's poll is quite revealing itself: if anything, negative attitudes were on the rise, especially towards American "freedom/democracy" and whatever else is American in general (of which the latter I tend to have a neutral opinion on).

In interpreting it further, we have Tom Regan of the Christian Science Monitor, who published these findings online. Before we continue, I'd like to highlight the skeptical accuracy of polls, as mentioned by Regan here:

The surveys, conducted in November, surveyed 3,500 Arab adults in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan.

Well, 3,500 adults in each nation might make sense, but each nation mentioned has a population that is a thousand-fold bigger than the sample size taken in the poll. However, Regan would have known this and taken that earlier polls had either the same sample size or even a smaller sample size. He cites the Washington Times, which reported that in the past,

Mr. Zogby said he first noticed a distinct shift in 2004. In the 2006 survey, only a plurality of Lebanese polled expressed a favorable view of the American people, with 44 percent approving and 18 percent expressing unfavorable views.

The American people are viewed least favorably in Saudi Arabia, where 18 percent said they had a favorable opinion and 34 percent expressed an unfavorable opinion. At the same time, 50 percent of Saudis say they like American products, compared with 24 percent who do not ...

Middle Eastern poll respondents cited the Iraq war and perceived US support for Israel over the Palestinians as their biggest concerns.

Of course, nothing surprising there. I tend to take polls with a grain of salt, as many have been shown to be faulty (such as the famous bollocks of a Daily Telegraph poll which showed that 53% of Britons feel that Islam is a threat to the West).

James Zogby himself commented on the results, saying,

"If America wants to salvage itself and improve its standing and get the credibility and legitimacy it needs to lead in Iraq, it needs to do something to earn the trust of allies in the broader region."

Well, of course the American government needs to earn that trust, but from what I see, it's not going to be an easy path, considering that the American government has an impressive track record of 50+ years in accumulating and earning distrust of the Arab people towards the American government. Such a long time eventually lead to a substantial portion of the Arab population hating not just the American government, but also anything that hinted at being commercially American.

But it's not going to be easy for the American government to salvage this trust from the bloodied corpses of dead Iraqis, Lebanese and Palestinians, the heap of rubble of destroyed homes and buildings, and the despair in the souls of those who were rendered destitute as a result of American interventionism, in whatever form it came over these Goddamned 50+ years of aggression and support of aggression against Arabs.

Saracen

Has Ahmadinejad Lost his Mind?!

He's not "possessed" like many people make him out to be, but he is as obsessed with the Holocaust issue and other whacko conspiracy theories. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went too far this time: he hosted a "Holocaust conference" that was most likely a mock conference used to insult Jewish history and the Holocaust itself, which is an event that has roots in human history as Jews, Poles, and all other "opponents" to the Nazi regime were executed (quoted "opponents" because many of them were innocent of any opposition or support for that matter). Ahmadinejad is shatterring his own image with the very thing that people are accusing him of being: denying the Holocaust's existence.

To do that, he invited several historians from around the world to attend this conference... historians who have been painted as Holocaust deniers. Granted, these people have the right to believe what they believe in, but as long as they do, there will be people elsewhere who will criticize them for it. I myself do not deny the Holocaust: I know people whose parents and grandparents survived the Holocaust. The invitee list is caustic. Among the attendees are former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and French professor Robert Faurisson, both of them well-known anti-Semites. If Iran's leader was honest about this Holocaust conference, he would have invited an equal number of reputable historians on the Holocaust who affirm its occurrence, not just Khaled Mahameed, who is one of these historians.

Not surprisingly, the conference received widespread condemnation, mainly from the Western world. Of course, we get the same old, lame old rhetoric from Ehud Olmert, probably the most incompetent Israeli Prime Minister to date. The conference was immediately labelled as anti-Semitic (which I believe it is to some extent) because it speaks of continuing a debate which ended years and years ago, ever since the criminals responsible for the Holocaust were tried and executed.

But Ahmadinejad received even more noteworthy criticism from an unexpected source: a Palestinian prisoner. While I'm sure that most if not all Palestinians believe that the Holocaust really occurred, this one made note because it was actually made much more public. Angus McDowall of The Independent writes,

However, Mr Ahmadinejad has been condemned on the eve of the conference by Mahmoud al-Safadi, who was sentenced to 27 years by Israel for throwing Molotov cocktails during the 1988 intifada. In an open letter to the Iranian president, he says that Mr Ahmadinejad's stance is a "great disservice to popular struggles the world over".

"Perhaps you see Holocaust denial as an expression of support for the Palestinians," he writes. "Here, too, you are wrong. We struggle for our existence and our rights, and against the historic injustice that was dealt us in 1948.

"Our success and our independence will not be gained by denying the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people, even if parts of this people are the very forces that occupy and dispossess us to this day." Mr Safadi says that reading the works of Arab intellectuals helped convince him that the Holocaust was a historical fact.

Golden words, in my opinion. I find it hypocritical that Ahmadinejad stands against the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and at the same time deny that genocide occurred against the Jews, even though a part of the Jewish people (i.e. Zionists in the Israeli regime) are committing atrocities against the Palestinians. It is often taken in the Arab world, sadly, that Israel represents the world Jewry, and Judaism as a whole, and that support for the Palestinians means that we should oppose Israel, the "representative" of the world Jewry. This is the reason why many Zionists equate anti-Zionism (over Palestine) with anti-Semitism, and sadly, some pro-Palestinian supporters, Palestinian or not, "justify" their anti-Semitism because the "other side" is anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian or anti-Muslim racist.

This, of course, isn't true. There are many Zionists out there who support a Jewish state, but do not support genocide, nor are they anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bigots, and I know this because I've debated with such people. Ahmadinejad seeks to polarize the sides, and turn it into some apocalyptic conflict. His support for Palestine does not come at denying the Holocaust. If he hosted a conference against Zionist motivations in Palestine (i.e. the Catastrophe of 1948), I'd have no problem as it is purely historical, though politics is rapidly losing its flavor with me because of how much it divides people. If he is supporting an oppressed people, he shouldn't denigrate the oppressor's background, that's what I'd say. I hope this Holocaust conference becomes nothing more than a sham and a reassurance to Ahmadinejad that it did happen.

Ahmadinejad's views on Israel have been very ambivalent. On one note, he acknowledges the existence of the Holocaust but undermines the legitimacy of the Israeli regime. On the other, he is willing to say that the Holocaust is a myth. Even returning to the related stories in the first article I presented (the one with Olmert and Merkel) do you see this ambivalence in his opinion. Clearly, Ahmadinejad is stammerring on this issue.

On that note, I am equivocal in condemning all genocides in the history of man, from the earliest days to the present, wherever such killings of innocents occurs. Whether it be the Holocaust, Stalin's Purges, the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem, etc., there is no justification for such actions. Ahmadinejad is now trying to push some of that under the dirt, and that is certainly not going to help the Palestinian cause for self-determination. But Ahmadinejad remains a non-threat, though his provocative remarks and assertation of independence are quite surprising for a politician these days. Whatever it is, with or without this petty Holocaust conference, the Holocaust happened, and so has every other genocide that has been recorded in human history. And those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. We should remember all incidents of sufferring in the past and present, so we could work together to build a safer and more prosperous future for our children.

Saracen

Rumsfled's "Memo of Options": Just Another Corruption Manual

Anyone been following up on this old coot? Yeah, I'm talking about U.S. Secretary of "Defense", Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld, accomplished neocon and one man who has plenty of blood on his hands. I must admit that he has done quite a lot for the detriment of Iraq, sadly, considering the fallacious investigations into genocidal incidents on part of Coalition troops stationed there. Rumsfeld is famous for being cute in front of the mic, and in mulling over most issues that neocons try to run away from, whenever it comes to being questioned by the press (yes, God damn them for trying to get the truth out, eh, Rummy?). But they're authority figures, so we can't question them, even when they screw up a beautiful nation like Iraq 100,000 times over.

The ever so snoopy (and yet also biased) New York Times published a formerly classified Novermber 6 memorandum that Donald Rumsfeld himself issued regarding the Iraq war. The big hype of it all is that it was supposed to issue a "major" change. Well, let's just see how "major" it really is. Let's start by analyzing the intro of the memo:

"The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

Remind me again... who was it who incited this "sectarian violence" and encouraged the formation of the "death squads" in the first place? The Iraqis themselves? Doubt they would commit suicide, especially when an invader such as the Coalition is involved.

What I find common amongst neocon politicians and other incompetents is that they usually have no friggin' clue on what they're talking about, and what they speak is usually empty Orwellian gibberish that is most dismissed by the biggest threat to such politicians: the intellectual mind. Let's just start by looking at his first "point":

"Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made)."

If anything, the U.S. public has not been assured of any such progress for the most part in Iraq. So, how are the Iraqi people themselves, who for the most part want the Coalition out of Iraq, going to respond to this? Obviously, not so well. Note also that Rumsfeld made it clear that this non-representative government of Iraq is the only body that the Coalition is dealing with, not the people of Iraq, and this of course underlies any sort of democratic reform because it fails to address the demands of the people.

Then, there's the question of a pull-out, or even adding more U.S. troops to the mess in Iraq. Honestly, Rumsfeld has no care whatsoever about human life: those of the Iraqi troops and those of his own nation's troops.

"Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq."

Not that I tend to be biased, but carrying out joint military exercises, as Russia and China have done in the past, have been viewed at negatively because in this case, the developing Iraqi army is in cahoots with the developed Coalition (U.S./U.K.) army. This is pretty much starting to sound like the forging of the Egypt-U.S. alliance ever since that petty scumbag of a dictator, Husni Mubarak, took the presidential throne for himself.

Skipping over a few subtle empty points, we find something not so subtle:

"Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province."

So, let me get this straight. Provine A wants the help of the U.S., but the people of province A will only get that help if they allow themselves to be subjugated to Coalition "security measures". That is, the people of province A get their freedoms sacrificed for the sake of their "security", which could eventually result in the destabilization of the province. But seeing how that works, we turn to another point in this damning memo:

"Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."

"Good" behavior means compliance with Coalition demands, not Iraqi demands. The Coalition has absolutely no moral right whatsoever to do such a thing. Of course, this is by definition cronyism, because it just leads to further distrust and may also give the Coalition the pretext to incite more civil tensions in Iraq, and I mean all over it.

This one made me laugh:

"Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government."

He doesn't have to worry about it as there already is a strong Coalition influence on the government, which has proved more negative than positive.

The last point is just a pure re-iteration and confirmation of the goals of the Coalition in Iraq:

"Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period."

That couldn't have been more clearer, Rummy. The memo of options has proved itself to be just another sleazy political move on part of the U.S. government in the case of Iraq. All they have to do is favoritize certain political figures over others so they could do whatever the Coalition tells them to do, and yet the Coalition absolves itself from any and all responsibility.

Whatever it is, I'm glad that Rummy Rumsfeld's words, like those of any politician, are not going to be implemented into U.S. foreign policy in the future. He has finally stepped down, only to be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates (Associated Press, Forbes). Also commenting on this event is Counterpuncher Mike Whitney. Rumsfeld, according to Whitney, can't be trusted, because Rumsfled

spies on Americans' phone calls, computers, medical records, bank records and groups. He has been a stanch supporter of planting propaganda in newspapers and TV. He introduced a program that created a "rapid response" team to rebut information that is critical of US foreign policy appearing on blogs, web-sites and letters to the editor. He controlled the flow of information coming out of Iraq and managed to silence many of the war's critics. He developed a plan for "Total Information Awareness" that is designed to control everything that the public sees and hears from cradle to grave.

Now he is trying to write his own legacy. It is just another in a long list of deceptions; a smokescreen created to conceal his responsibility in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

The memo states that Rumsfeld was planning to make major adjustments and that "Clearly, what US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough". But "what US forces were doing" was exactly what Rumsfeld told them to do; nothing more, nothing less.

When he told them to bomb Falluja to the ground, they followed his orders; and when they tortured and stacked naked prisoners on top of each other, they followed his orders. And, when they trained the Shiite death squads to kill and maim Sunni suspects, they followed his orders.

Every major decision in 4 years of conflict bears Rumsfeld's imprimatur. It's his policy; it's his war. If Rumsfeld continued as Secretary of Defense, then nothing would change, because he has absolute confidence in violence and deception as the two main instruments for political transformation.

Rumsfeld's memo is great reading for fiction-lovers. It provides a revealing snapshot of a leader who carefully considered every alternative before making a decision. It's a stark contrast to the intractable narcissist who ignored his advisors and bullied his generals. But, like I said, it's great fiction.

Excerpt: "Announce that no matter whatever new approach the US decides on, the US is doing on a trial basis'. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, and therefore not lose'".

In other words, keep moving the goalposts while people die and the public will never catch on.

That's a whole new take on cynicism.

Rumsfeld has enjoyed his 6-year tenure as Sec-Def. He probably thought it would never end. Now what he needs is a good biographer, like Bob Woodward, who can invent a story about his exploits fighting "radical Islam's" attack on the "land of the free and the home of the brave". No doubt, there'll be a photo of the square-jawed Rummy plastered atop the muscled torso of Favio staving off the swarthy Middle Eastern males' with his trusty DOD-issue scimitar.

Enough said.

The memo is just more gibberish; the empty dissembling of a con-man trying to hoodwink the public before scuttling off into political oblivion.

I know that this might seem irrelevant - that he drafted up this plan - but think of the irony here: in his last move as the Secretary of "Defense", he clearly defined for us the imperialistic "divide and conquer" motives behind U.S. foreign policy. And yet, here we see another war criminal, in the same row as people like Henry Kissinger, Ariel Sharon, George W. Bush Jr., Tony Blair, Slobodan Milosevic, and others, scuffle away from justice.

So, yes, as Whitney pointed out, I've got the same advice for you, Rummy: Don't let the door hit you on the way out... Don.

Saracen

Pitiful Politics of the Levant

I thought the situation in Lebanon would simmer down a bit after the Israeli invasion of the once upright Mediterranean nation during the hot summer that was hot for many reasons. Instead, I wake up to see, right on the morning news, turmoil. The (assassination of the Maronite cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel could not have come at a worse time. And now, instead of Lebanon uniting, we get fingers all over the place, pointing in all sorts of directions... with your friendly neighborhood Sa'ad Al-Hariri - who wouldn't amount even to my younger brother in his "maturity" - prattling on the same Bush-style B.S. about a lover of freedom who was killed in Beirut. Granted, I deplore the death of Gemayyel, but exploiting the death of one politician for the gains of another is just... typically political.

Well, you get the idea, not that I'd like to see Sa'ad Al-Hariri fall off from a two-meter stage and break his leg. But the thing is, why the heck do we have someone like Nasrallah now inciting protests against the government? I had a feeling that something like this was going to happen, especially since sectarian tensions flared during AND after Pierre Gemayyel's funeral. As two of my dear Lebanese friends put it, this is simply a case of "democracy gone wrong". According to Al Jazeera,

Christian leader Michel Aoun said that the Lebanese opposition would escalate its protests if the government failed to accept demands for a national unity cabinet. "If the prime minister and his camp continue to monopolise power, there will be an escalation of popular pressure," Aoun told Associated French Press. "We will paralyse the government ... we will force it to go into a deep coma."

I hate to break it to Aoun and other Lebanese officials, but I personally think that they are all sufferring from a coma at the moment: they are obviously not aware of the almost extremely disunited state that their nation is in. Unless they wake up, Lebanon will remain a divided nation. Also,

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference urged Lebanese leaders to act with "the highest degree of self-restraint, wisdom and responsibility in order to save the country from slipping on the inevitable slope of confrontation". Lebanon's Maronite church also weighed in, urging an early presidential election, an tribunal into the killing of Rafiq al-Hariri, and the formation of a new "government of accord" to end the political deadlock. The opposition, made up of Shia and Christian factions, has held demonstrations since Friday outside the offices of Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister,in central Beirut where he and several ministers have been holed up.

Poor Siniora... I wonder how it's like to be holed up inside a parliament building for days on end. My rather sarcastic sympathies aside, I have to outline something: Siniora isn't the sharpest bullet around. He's the former finance minister and held this position for a short while. Before that, he was a businessman. And what better businessmen to be politicians, especially in the Arab world? Ok, now seriously, let's reflect on the Maronite Church's position. The "government of accord" clearly caught my eye: it's seemingly the same demand being echoed by the opposition protestors who are camped outside the Lebanese parliament building.

But then again, something else caught my eye. Returning to the story regarding sectarian tensions making sparks especially after Gemayyel's funeral, one mourner, who goes by the name of Fadi Jalakh, said something that I am most definitely in cahoots with:

"Those who killed him don't want the Lebanese to unite. Anything after this is going to make things worse."

This is not to necessarily say that he's right: what is it was a personal vendetta? What if the murderer did want the Lebanese to unite, but in his/her own sick, perverted way? Many a man has been murdered since Hariri, among them politician Gibran Tueni, his colleague and a prominent journalist Samir Kassir (whose book, Being Arab, I will be talking about later), former Lebanese Communist party leader George Hawi, and now Industry Minister Pierre Gemayyel. It's relatively easy to see why all fingers have been pointed at Syria: all names mentioned have been vocal critics of the Syrian political intervention in Lebanon (and rightly so). One might speculate that because they opposed Syrian presense in Lebanon, they were killed. Another might say that others are seeking to sow discord between Arabs, and frame Syria in the process. Or it might have just been some strange political bickering... but whatever it was, Lebanese politicians all over were exploiting the deaths of these men.

To be honest with you, reader, I don't know what to make of this mess. On one hand, the protests have so far been "peaceful and civilized". On the other hand, they're still going on, and who knows when they'll end. I honestly don't know who to trust: Nasrallah and Aoun, or Siniora and his government. It's quite obvious, however, that they're still being political: Nasrallah, in a televised address, claimed that he and his supporters would lead a non-violent resistance and not encourage any sort of tension. Siniora, however, remains holed up, and he and his colleagues, including Jumblatt, whose demeanor speaks truly of his lacking intelligence, keep parrotting demands for dialogue with concessions and formation of a government "with accords". Of course, Nasrallah tries to lend credibility to his argument by stating, on Al Manar,

"We insist on our demands, for the formation of a real government of national unity... because it is the only means to prevent any foreign tutelage on Lebanon, so that we have Lebanese decision-making."

I'm not sure if I am to take his word on this one. I mean, clearly, politicians these days tend to be less concerned about the gains of nations and more concerned about their own selfish gains and influence in the region. This, of course, has to do with power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bush definitely lead this adage by example; look what he did to Iraq. I wonder if the other politicians are smart enough not to fall into the same manhole.

I think it's best that these politicians follow my plan for political reform in the Arab world, because if they don't, they'll find themselves ripping each other apart. Nasrallah's Hizbullah faction clearly shows, for example, favoritism for the Shi'ite south. The same goes for Nabih Berri's Amal faction. The Lebanese Forces of Samir Geagea, yet another politician I have absolutely no respect nor love for, are almost purely Maronite-leaning, as are the Phalange/Kataeb of Amine Gemayyel, the father of the slain Pierre Gemayyel. What the Lebanese need is a party that favors Lebanese, and addresses the rights of other minorites in Lebanon who are not Lebanese in origin, just like any just nation would do.

Identifying the problem is the first step to the solution. And as long as the leaders themselves have personal vendettas that they just can't seem to shove aside, then I propose that these leaders be deposed in favor of a generation of new statesmen (NOT politicians) that has no (familial) association whatsoever with any of the sectarian/feudalist politicians in the Lebanese parliament. Either that, or all parties should drop their personal grudges and work towards rebuilding the nation that was once known as the "Paris of the Middle East"...

But who am I kidding? I have no hope for politicians who waste parliamentary sessions fighting over the most trivial of issues.

Saracen

Invading Iran?

Military analysts in Washington say that Bush may soon decide to bomb Iran. Apparently though, they think it would only be a "limited military action to destroy their WMD capabilities," not a full-scale invasion. The idea of a clean, in-and-out operation that ends quickly reminds me of the "Mission Accomplished" banner from May of 2003, which has been followed by three and a half years of continued military occupation with no end in sight.

No one knows how many have been killed in Iraq, and no one can know how many would be killed in Iran. One might draw hope from the idea that the Bush administration would learn from its mistakes in Iraq, and not invade Iran. Of course, one might have hoped that they would have learned from Afghanistan and not have invaded Iraq. One might have hoped that the American government would learn from Vietnam or Korea, and hesitate to invade countries in the guise of bringing democracy, but one hoping that would be disappointed.

Whether the motive is bringing democracy to the Middle East, bringing oil from the Middle East, or something else, the past has shown that it brings death to many. Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq range from Iraq Body Count's minimum estimate of about 47,500 to The Lancet's (PDF) estimate of over 600,000. There have been no widely reported estimates of civilian deaths in Afghanistan, all that is really known is that it is many, in my opinion too many.

The past has also shown that "the mission", whatever it is exactly, cannot be done simply and easily. The "mission" in Iraq was declared "accomplished" in two months; nevertheless, is now well into its third year. The Independent once called the conflict in Afghanistan the "War With No End," as it, like Iraq, seems to have no end in sight. A "limited military operation" in Iran might be no different.

Fortunately, Bush will soon be subject to a Democratic congress. Unfortunately, many Democrats voted with Republicans to support the invasion of Iraq, and there is no guarantee that they will not do the same if it comes to Iran. Some say that Bush doesn't have the trust of the public which is necessary to invade another country, and, though this trust is of course not technically necessary to launch military operations, it is necessary for the Republican Party to win elections. It is my hope, though not necessarily my belief, that party politics will do some good for once and prevent an invasion.

If Bush does decide to invade Iran though, for whatever reasons, it will not be simple, it will not be short, and it will certainly not be bloodless.

"Leftist Wave" in Latin America

First, it was Evo Morales of Bolivia. Afterwards, it was Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. And now,it's Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista movement, out of all parties, of Nicaragua. The wave of electoral victories by leftist parties in the Western hemisphere has come to show that the rightwing certainly is wrong on most parts, and is losing support fast. Then again, "anti-Americanism" is rife in this part of the world. Of course, when it comes to bigger nations intervening in the affairs of "the little guys", you can expect a warm response to such meddling... right?

But that aside, Latin America was a major Cold War front back in the 50's onwards. From it arose famous figures, such as Che Guevara (who, while glorified and immortalized on t-shirts, baseball caps, and posters, was a murderer at best), Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, and - who would've guessed it? - Daniel Ortega. During the era of the Cold War, many democratically-elected leftist leaders of Latin American nations were deposed in U.S.-government-sanctioned coups; thousands of innocents paid dearly with their lives as a result of this intervention and its consequences. As a result, many people suffered under rightwing oppressive dictatorships, or were decimated by rightwing militant factions. Whatever the case, Latin America has proven to be an interesting case of interventionism, moreso because of the icons, the events, the atrocities, the leaders, and the desperation that was a trademark of this era of post-WW2 interventionism and imperialism.

But what will become of this situation? Will the American government actually set its sights on these nations and turn each one of them into more Iraqs and Afghanistans, just to install leaders who would abide by the whims of the American government? Who knows, really? I am not a fan of leftism or rightism, but I'd take a lefty over a rightwinger any day since leftwingers tend to stand up more for social justice issues. Anyways, we'll see how this plays out...

Saracen

P.S. For those interested in interventionist policies running rampant in the Americas, I recommend Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of Imperialism by Greg Gandin. While I managed to read only a couple of excerpts from this book, I have to say that it's quite comprehensive and well-cited from what I have seen. But of course, Gandin is a staunch Chomskyite, so he might be anti-American for the sake of being anti-American, but anti-American might mean anti-American-government at all times.