The Progressive Corner

Saddam's Willing Executioners

2006-12-31T20:44:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-17T09:44:00.000-08:00

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?!

2006-12-13T16:30:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-08T20:21:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-07T19:01:00.000-08:00

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?

2006-11-25T05:57:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-24T21:11:00.000-08:00

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.

North Korea goes Nuclear... now what?

2006-11-19T17:31:00.000-08:00

With the Palestinian Unity Government gearing almost into full-swing, and Iraq clambering on the top of the bottomless abyss of destruction that it seems to be falling down upon, we turn our shift to another country that has been making news. North Korea. You know, the little nation with a capital city that almost rhymes with ping pong and borders its southern neighbor: (you guessed it) South Korea. It made recent headlines because it apparently did something that displeased the neoconservative American government (now almost defunct because of the recent Democratic electoral victory): its leader, Kim Jong Il, ordered a nuclear test as his nation finally achieved, after years of oppressive rule under his tyranny, capabilities of building nuclear weapons (oh, joy), and, in a show of "defiance", test-fired the nuke.

So, in effect, we're witnessing another "Iran" as a "thorn" to Bush's side. In case you missed it, North Korea is also part of Bush's "Axis of Evil"... and I thought Iran's "Izlamofashist" dictator was enough. But all the while, Iran is still the victim here: the victim of an unjust propaganda campaign bent at snatching away its right to peaceful nuclear technology.

Just to give you an idea of the hypocrisy here. The Iranian government is being scrutinized particularly because it seeks to enrich its own uranium ores so that it may use them for nuclear power. The neocon administration is asserting that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and is thus launching an international offensive to press Iran into not doing anything. But the entire process itself requires enrichment to begin with, or else Iran will be left without any purpose to seek nuclear power. North Korea already bypassed that, and went as far as to producing nuclear weapons. To deny the Iranians the same right is too hypocritical to say the least. Sure, North Korea may not necessarily be a signatory of the NPT (FAS.org), but to seriously impose restrictions on Iran is seriously hypocritical: if anything, Iran is no threat, never has been.

And then there's Kim Jong Il, whose government can never be more anti-American in nature. Just take a look at this Google search I just conducted, or, better yet, take a look at this:

This is pretty much the same communist hogwash propaganda that one can expect from a country governed by a leader who, like George Dubya Bush, has not left the Cold War era and entered into the sphere of realpolitik. Regarding the issue, I have nothing against their anti-American stance, and while I'm not anti-American, I'm most certainly not pro-American either, or pro-(anyone in particular). Someone might argue on the same basis that the Sudanese government is anti-Darfurian, and the Israeli government is anti-Palestinian, and on and on.

Regarding this issue, Kim Jong Il is entering murky waters. I see no reason for nukes unless they're deterrents, but then again, I believe that nukes should be abolished completely. Also, North Korea sparks special concern because, like its southern neighbor, it is inherently culturally Korean. South Korea's "sunshine policy" seems to be indicative of an effort to reunify North Korea and South Korea into Korea. I have a special connection with Korea particularly because I'm a student of Tae Kwon Do, and have yet to fully master this beautiful martial art. Anyways, getting back to the topic, I believe that North Korea's government should dismantle itself, for the good of its people and for the good of its neighbors, as well as approach the table and hear out the South Korean government on this one. Perhaps one Korea is better than two Koreas, especially when North Korea's people are being underrepresented.

Oh, well, we'll see how this one plays out.

PNA Unity... in this Desperation?

2006-11-07T18:41:00.000-08:00

Palestine... Palestine... Palestine... Sometimes, I hold little regard to my national identity that I technically view it as simply my cultural identity and a place that I can trace my origins to. I'm just iffed at politics to an extent that nationalism and national identity mean almost nothing to me, because all that nationalism and national identity have done is divide people by identifying them as different. My views towards the political parties of my people has become all too cynical for me to comment it. If you don't believe me, just take a look at my previous rant regarding the "unity" issue.

Speaking of the "unity" between Fatah and Hamas, I always viewed it as unlikely, especially considering the already increasing violence against Palestinians in the occupied territories (42 dead, including two paramedics!). But this is just to point out the recent developments surrounding this issue. One of the papers that covered this issue was Israel's Jerusalem Post, a clearly right-wing publication; nevertheless, the news is always something one can benefit from. It's obvious that Abbas, as usual, refuses to resign for the sake of unity, while Haniyeh actually yielded to stepping down as the unity PM (Al Jazeera). But there already is skepticism over this unity: obviously, both parties are oblivious to the deteriorating political and economic situation. According to the JPost,

a poll published on Tuesday by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion reported that pessimism was rising among Palestinians about the chances of an improvement in their economic and political situation. According to the survey, which covered some 1,000 people, 62.3 percent said they were now pessimistic, while 80.9% were worried about the very survival of their families. T. Nabil Kukali, director of the Bet Sahur-based center, said the proportion of pessimists in the Palestinian territories had increased by 33.2% from a year ago.

Kukali said two-thirds of the respondents evaluated their financial condition as "bad," an increase of 24.8 percentage points compared to last year's poll. He said more than 60% of Palestinians hold the Israel, the US and other donor countries responsible for the deterioration in the economic situation in the Palestinian territories. The results of the latest survey "should be taken very seriously because they show in abundance the dreadful extent of the recession that economic and living conditions have undergone."

The findings from Near East Consulting not only support the findings of the poll, but also allude to a horrible future for quite a lot of Palestinians if this situation deteriorates. It's no surprise why many Palestinians are distrustful of their government, especially as far as Israel is concerned in this issue. But returning to the situation of the Palestinians, one could see that these results slightly correlate with the amount of support each faction receives: it's obvious that most Palestinians, according to these findings, who are below the poverty line are pessimistic and skeptical regarding the issue of factional trust from the beginning.

Ok, now seriously, the PNA had better get its act together, because there are a lot of Palestinians living in a bad situation, and if their lives are to improve, there should be an effective economic and political reform, because years of corruption and occupation have eroded Palestinian society for far too long. The Palestinians can't afford to lose over petty political bickering.

Saracen

Neoconservative Justice: Non-Threat Former Dictator Saddam gets Death Penalty

2006-11-06T18:31:00.000-08:00

Funny... the last time I tuned into Iraq, it was in a state of chaos and anarchy, with the Iraqi capital of Baghdad divided into many mini-states, with the bubble world known as the "Green Zone" fortified from the rest of the death and destruction. A month ago or so, the death toll was found to be shockingly higher than it was estimated to be. But looking at the present, something happened that wasn't too surprising for the common viewer: Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq...was sentenced to death.

I honestly don't know what to make of it. On one side, he is finally getting punished for the crimes he committed against innocent Iraqis. On the other hand, there shouldn't have been such a big contemplation over this issue. What's worse was that the verdict was just another factor that could prove to be divisive, so says Al Jazeera.net. It should be noted that Saddam still had many (pro-Baath) supporters amongst the Iraqi populace, not that it's a good thing; I despise the Ba'ath party like no tomorrow, simply because they were the biggest factors in tainting the international Arab image. Regarding this issue, it is sad to see that Iraqis are divided over this issue.

However, this trial is the latest demonstration of the neoconservative brand of justice: only those who oppose your foreign policy aims are terrorists and dictators. Granted, Saddam was a despot and a murderer, but there are a lot of leaders who were deposed in interventionist operations during the Cold-War era; none of the leaders who were deposed were of any national threat to the United States of America, let alone an international threat to the neighboring nations. Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf, while a maintainer of order, is also a secular despot who falls under the same category as does Abu Uday (Saddam), yet he is not a dictator by American foreign policy standards. The same can be said for the Uzbek president, and other historically notorious names such as Augusto Pinochet (Chile), the Contra rebels (Nicaragua), Shah Reza Pahlevi (Iran), et al.

I can't tell you how pissed I am when I see that many war criminals are living atop the thrones of nations that could have otherwise been free nations. Then again, there are many war criminals who still walk this earth, unpunished for the crimes that they have committed. Not surprisingly, many bloggers have found the same issue that I have faced, including one J.S. Guntzel of Electronic-Iraq.net. He introduces to us a man by the name of Abu Deraa, citing a Newsweek article. This man and his death squads have

been waging a campaign of terror across the city. He is suspected of torturing and killing scores of Sunnis in a bloody wave of ethnic cleansing in neighborhoods across Baghdad. U.S. officials believe Abu Deraa is responsible for the capture of a U.S. Army translator who disappeared two weeks ago while leaving the fortified Green Zone and remains missing.

He and Zarqawi are definitely cut from the same thread: both have been leading attacks against the other sect, and neither have any moral high ground. But, as usual, the biggest crooks lie within the government. Why is that? Well, with the government, there is authority and power, and a bigger chance that you can commit a heinous crime and get away with it. Guntzel tells us to look no further than this Human Rights Watch report, which urges the Iraqi government to

move quickly to prosecute all Ministry of Interior personnel responsible for "death squad" killings in Baghdad and elsewhere, Human Rights Watch said today.

"Evidence suggests that Iraqi security forces are involved in these horrific crimes, and thus far the government has not held them accountable," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division. "The Iraqi government must stop giving protection to security forces responsible for abduction, torture and murder."

Every month, hundreds of people are abducted, tortured and killed by what many believe are death squads that include security forces. To terrorize the population, the killers often dump the mutilated corpses in public areas.

Human Rights Watch welcomed the recent suspension from duties of the 8th Iraqi Police Unit pending an investigation into their complicity in abductions and killings. The US military has claimed that the unit was responsible for the October 1 kidnapping of 26 Sunni food factory workers in southwest Baghdad, 10 of whom were later found dead. The news agency Inter Press Service reported that the unit used Ministry of Interior vehicles and, according to witnesses, some wore black "death squad" uniforms.

"The investigation into the 8th Iraqi Police Unit is only a first step," said Whitson. "It is vital that the government get the evidence to bring criminal prosecutions against those responsible, whatever their rank."

The Ministry of Interior is responsible for the country's security forces, some of which have close ties to the two principal Shia militias - the Mahdi Army and the Badr Forces. These security forces are believed to be responsible for numerous sectarian killings, operating in some cases as death squads in Baghdad and other provinces. It is not clear to what extent the ministry controls these security forces or whether they are under the effective control of the militias.

Human Rights Watch has examined scores of bodies at the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad over the past two years that appear to have been victims of execution-style killings, often preceded by torture. Police bring bodies of people killed in violent attacks to the institute in cases requiring criminal investigation. Victims' family members sometimes have evidence, such as eyewitness accounts of a victim's arrest, that Ministry of Interior security forces were involved in the killing. In addition, statements by ministry officials and information from international police advisers also point to direct participation or complicity of government security forces in these killings.

My God. Is HRW seriously seeking to identify Shiites from Sunnites? Screw politics, because they're all Iraqi! Anyways, the bolded parts should be of notice. The Interior Ministry's death squad was of no consequence to the Iraqi Government, as the media has, impressively, done an amazing job in Iraq to conceal this horrific fact (Max Fuller, you couldn't have said it better).

The leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was right when he said that Saddam didn't know God, and that's why he feels no remorse over his crimes. However, he also points out that the occupiers and other governments like that of Israel are worse because they themselves have committed many crimes and gotten away them. Ariel Sharon is one: responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent Lebanese and Palestinians during the years of the Lebanese Civil War and the Second Intifada, he now lies in a coma, with no feeling whatsoever; he can't feel pain because he doesn't know it. Amir Peretz, overseer of the destruction of much of (south) Lebanon during the last summer is another such dark figure: the 1,000+ Lebanese and Palestinians dead by his hands have made the label "war criminal" his middle name. There are others like Moshe Ya'alon, the orchestrator of the First Qana Massacre (google it), and Rehavam Zeevi - wait, that guy was already capped. And who could forget Dubya Bush and Blair? And that old coot, Rumsfeld?

Speaking of ol' Rummy, let me show you a rather old pic of him with a familiar figure:

Who could miss out on Saddam Hussein? And what the hell was he doing with that despot? Well, Counterpuncher Norman Solomon already has a few tricks up his sleeve to answer that question. Citing reputable newspaper archives, he writes:

* On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld "visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country."

* Two days later, the New York Times cited a "senior American official" who "said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis."

* On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name." Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including "agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million." And while "no results of the talks have been announced" after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, "Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq."

* A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a New York Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government "granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years." The story recalled that "Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here," and the dispatch mentioned in passing that "State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state."

* Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam -- who went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.

* As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

Certainment, mon amis, did Rummy not only shake hands with a well-known murderer and ethnic "cleanser", but the American government supplied him with the tools of destruction that we come to know as biological non-conventional weaponry (FAS.org). But, oh, screw that. Those were years ago, when Saddam complied with rightwing foreign policy interests of the U.S.A.'s government. Now, here they are, dictating and occupying Iraq, while more people suffer and die, and the occupation continues.

When are the real war criminals going to the gallows? I, a pessimist at best, might say that they would never answer for their crimes... at least not in this life. For this life is nothing but "a fleeting enjoyment" for those who commit mischief and seek to sow discord amongst Muslims or anyone else for that matter. Only in the Hereafter, it seems, will these people answer to their Maker for all the heinous crimes they committed. But there is hope. These people must be exposed for the true war criminals that they are, and I mean every rightwing nutcase who turned Iraq, let alone the world, into a worse place than it is now. They must be tried and brought to justice. The world's populace must wake up and indict those who oppress others and aggress against other nations for the sake of fulfilling selfish desires. There should be peace, not war, because war is the last thing that this world needs right now.

As they say... No justice, no peace!

Saracen

Racists and "The Arab Mind"

2006-10-30T17:22:00.000-08:00

During the run up to the Iraq war I found myself in many arguments. One of the most distinct in my memory involved a spirited young republican. I argued that war will not solve our problems with terrorism but will spread instability and violence. His retort was striking. He said that you must use force with Arabs. He said they only understood force. My friend, an Egyptian who spent most of her life in Sweden, decided to take over at that point. The specifics of the argument is beside the point. This argument sticks out in my mind because of the blatant racism.

Why would a person believe such a thing? Why would they hold to a dehumanizing and racist belief like that? These are questions I still consider. After reading this article in the Guardian, I might be a step closer to some answers.

I'll begin with a powerful excerpt:

Consider these statements:

"Why are most Africans, unless forced by dire necessity to earn their livelihood with 'the sweat of their brow', so loath to undertake any work that dirties the hands?"

"The all-encompassing preoccupation with sex in the African mind emerges clearly in two manifestations ..."

"In the African view of human nature, no person is supposed to be able to maintain incessant, uninterrupted control over himself. Any event that is outside routine everyday occurrence can trigger such a loss of control ... Once aroused, African hostility will vent itself indiscriminately on all outsiders."

These statements, I think you'll agree, are thoroughly offensive. You would probably imagine them to be the musings of some 19th century colonialist. In fact, they come from a book promoted by its US publisher as "one of the great classics of cultural studies", and described by Publisher's Weekly as "admirable", "full of insight" and with "an impressive spread of scholarship".

The book is not actually about Africans. Instead, it takes some of the hoariest old prejudices about black people and applies them to Arabs.

Here is more detail on the book where these quotes can be found:

The book in question is called The Arab Mind, and is by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at several US universities, including Columbia and Princeton.

Here are some effects of such a book:

Hersh was discussing the chain of command that led US troops to torture Iraqi prisoners. Referring specifically to the sexual nature of some of this abuse, he wrote: "The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"One book that was frequently cited was The Arab Mind ... the book includes a 25-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression."

Hersh continued: "The Patai book, an academic told me, was 'the bible of the neocons on Arab behaviour'. In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged - 'one, that Arabs only understand force, and two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation'."

Last week, my own further enquiries about the book revealed something even more alarming. Not only is it the bible of neocon headbangers, but it is also the bible on Arab behaviour for the US military.

Please read the entire article.

Books like these play a significant role in dehumanization. Arabs are turned into a homogenous and mostrous group in books like these. But this dehumanization isn't limited to this book and its readers. Similiar ideas, like the one I encountred during the run-up to the Iraq war, are circulating. These ideas are propped up with fear and menancing fictions like "Islamofascism."

A Hegelian Discourse

2006-10-29T07:53:00.000-08:00

I admit that I am no student of Philosophy. However, I must comment that after reading certain philosophical works (are they philosophical?), I started to question them from a more - you can say - "simplistic" point of view, one that does not include all the confusing mumbo jumbo in contemporary and classical Philosophy. One such person who caught my eye was a German guy named Hegel.Georg Hegel. He was a German philosopher back in the day, and had quite a cult following, both right-wingers and left-wingers.

I tend to view him in the same light as the same guy who said that "democracies can't fight each other" (which is utterly false). Why is that? Hegel, like Samuel Huntington, in his controversial yet faulty "Clash of Civilizations" theory (I wrote something about this, but I suppose Edward Said has a much better argument), provided a philosophy that is based on simplistic collectivist ideas that do not take into account the many variables that shape our world today.

However, Hegel's theory has a more realistic basis than those of the other two. He stated that society progresses and forms a system called the thesis. The noted example on the Wikipedia link is the French Revolution. The antithesis results from the counter-propositions and faults of the system; the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution is a shining example of this. Ensuing conflict between these two aspects would produce a synthesis, which is void of all the defects of the previous society; the French Constitution can be regarded as such a synthesis. In more simplistic words, Hegel stated his theory as follows with respect to the larger scope of human History:

"The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom; a progress whose development according to the necessity of its nature, it is our business to investigate."

Reflect a bit on those words. He is stating that with respect to human freedoms, the world community/human society progresses through time as more human freedoms are given rather than taken. Many people borrowed from his philosophy, most notably Karl Marx, the (co-)founder of Communism (you might want to google "Friedrich Engels" and see what you come up with). Karl Marx proposed that class conflict would be the driving force that produces the synthesis, which would, over successive generations, lead to a utopia of classless society and ultimate human (economic) freedom (let's face it: Marx loved his moolah).

If Hegel was right, we would expect humans to be happy about the state of the world... in fact, much happier than before. The truth is that the world is now a worse place than it was years ago, in terms of human freedom.

There has been a rise in despotic regimes globally, and even without the concept of government do people in certain areas enjoy limited freedoms. There are also places with a great degree of disorder. As a liberal/libertarian, I believe that freedom and order are both essential to society. Scientifically, the chance of acquiring a stable and free society diminishes with time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can also apply to the universe in general:

"The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

Entropy is the degree of disorder, and it increases with time because systems tend towards less order, which require an investment, whether it be governmental power or individual choice, or anything else that tends to require energy. The flaw in the theory comes from the idea that people these days feel worse about the world, and that people have different views. Freedom will be a necessity, but people will tend to see that security should be placed in the stead of certain principles of liberty in order to maintain the order. It has been like this over the past few centuries: regimes rise and fall because they suddenly become too autocratic. It is guaranteed that in the end, there will be a maximum state of entropy, of disorder and freedom, but that will not come anytime soon.

Sometimes, I think Hegel might be correct. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic. As a Muslim, I believe in the End of Days, when the Earth will be verdant, and human freedom will be attained. However, considering the state of the world today, we can't be too certain. With all the needless war, destruction and death that has befallen so many people, it is very hard to say that we are attaining the state that both Hegel and Marx dreamed of.

But who knows? Only time will tell if Hegel was right...

Saracen

Bushisms... Bushisms... Bushisms...

2006-10-18T08:34:00.000-07:00

Slate.com has published a full list of (mis)quotations from the pResident of the United States of America. After looking at this page, I really doubted that he studied at Yale University; if he did, I'm pretty sure his status got him his grad degree. Anyways, getting back to the main topic, it's just that every time Bush makes a speech, he has to either fumble somewhere, or make himself look stupid so that people will "like" him and take him for his "innocence": after all, he appears to us as a dolt and a pathetic fool, so "making mistakes" (i.e. war on Iraq) would be excusable for him.

The fact is that someone in his diminutive and shameless stature who just prattles on nonsense doesn't deserve to be pResident more than he deserves to be some cattle rancher working on a farm in Texas. I hate to sound racist, because if I did, that wasn't really a racist insult against Texans. It's just that someone like Bush does not have the intellectual capacity to grasp power in government, and that if he were to control something, he should just stick to managing his cattle ranch: after all, it is his property, isn't it? Let's jump to the first and latest Bushism:

"You're one of the outstanding leaders in a very important part of the world. I want to thank you for strategizing our discussions."
—Meeting with the prime minister of Malaysia, New York, N.Y., Sept. 18, 2006

Oh, nice. I want to thank you, prime minister of Malaysia, for strategizing our discussions. In other words, I want to thank you for making it here on time in N.Y. and planning to come and visit me beforehand so we can talk over things, like all slimy politicians do. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Mr. Bush. It makes sense to hotel valets who park big limos.

The War On Iraq has been one of Bush's biggest "blunders", even though he intentionally manipulated intelligence to favor an all-out war against this "eval terrahrist" Saddam dude. Well, he proved our point in that he actually did fabricate the connections between Saddam and 9-11:

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."
—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006

Thanks for being such a man at this point as to openly admit that you did fabricate the war allegations by connecting Iraq to the war on terror, and the "war on terror" (which is actually a war OF terror) is nothing but a sham to begin with.

Sadly, the idiocy doesn't end there. The pResident seems to distinguish between the United States and America. Well, no duh, as America is a bicontinental landmass made of North America and South America. However, considering his small intellectual capacity, that's not what he meant when he said,

"I've reminded the prime minister—the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship."
—Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006

So, there are 2 new nations: the United States is one of them. America is the other. But you all know that both are more often than not used interchangeably. What Bush did was probaly not even grammatical: he claimed that the United States and America are two separate entities that, by default, have close relationships. Then I guess that the United Kingdom and Great Britian have a close relationship as well? No kidding, Sherlock: they're both the same country!

There's also this gem of a quote:

"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel."
—Washington, D.C., May 4, 2006

So, in short, Bush is not happy that Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel. I guess you need the competition. Better yet, take a look at what he said here:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

It's no surprise, then, that Bush is harming his own people and his country with all the laws that he passes and all the protocols, such as Kyoto, that he didn't sign, eh?

In a press conference in Jordan, when he was with King Abdullah II, Bush said about the terrorists,

"And I just -- I cannot speak strongly enough about how we must collectively get after those who kill in the name of -- in the name of some kind of false religion."

So, he actively claims his implicit intolerance for Islam, openly dubbed "a false religion" by many far-right-wing extremist Christians in the U.S., in this quotation, and this was supposedly done in a press conference next to King Abdullah II, who is supposedly a Muslim.

Here's another:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator".

Or this:

"I believe that a prosperous, democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India, and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world."

Two problems: Pakistan is far from being a democracy. But any dictatorship like that of Musharraf's that is allied to the U.S. is in the eyes of the U.S. a democracy. The second problem is that Pakistan is NOT EVEN PART OF THE ARAB WORLD. So yeah, somebody get him an atlas!

Well, there are a lot of Bushisms out there, and it would take me forever to debunk and debase them one by one, but whatever it is, all these (mis)quotations prove that George Bush is more than just a pathetic disgrace to the American government. I can't imagine how Americans are going to survive a bit more than a couple of years under his crony-ridden administration. Stupidity like that of Bush knows no bounds, and I just hope that the sooner his term is over, the better: I'd like to see that guy and all other neocons like him get rounded up and jailed... or placed under house arrest in their own mansions and cattle ranches, because that's where they deserve to be... away from power which they have no control over and have abused for too long to make this world a worse place than it really is.

Saracen

P.S. Even worse is what's making news these days: the U.S. allegedly threatened the Pakistani leader that the U.S. would bomb the nation "to the stone age" if it didn't cooperate with the U.S. government, according to the London Times. But agh, well, the Pakistani leader himself is a clout and a brutal dictator who should be brought to justice the same way Bush should receive his: impeachment, and permanent removal from power...

An Exit Strategy

2006-10-11T20:05:00.000-07:00

First, a mea culpa of my own: I should be blogging more! After a few months ruminating in my own pessimism I figure total silence is even less useful. So on we go...

In this little article here an American exit strategy for Iraq is discussed. No doubt an exit is needed...it is impossible to doubt the need for a massively different strategy when the current troop deployment only seems to be sightly slowing the descent towards civil war. While I believe the Americans have a reaponsibility to clean up the mess they made, it hardly seems possible to "win hearts and minds" when the local population knows you're there for the oil (or maybe to keep a buffer against Iran?).

I won't discuss every point of the larger article (maybe at a later date) but I think a true international stabalization force with substantial Muslim involvement is absolutely necessary. Maybe, just maybe, if the American presence in the region humbly devotes itself to reconstruction (including paying most of the bill) Iraqis might respect and support that.

The country can not be abandoned to become another terrorist training camp and anarchaic breeding ground for crime and chaos, but nothing will improve unless the global community joins hands and massively increases its efforts in Iraq.

Just don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Why Am I NOT Surprised at Bush?

2006-09-22T19:50:00.000-07:00

In the news, Bush gives an emotional "war on terror" speech against Iraq in the United Nations HQ in New York.

I swear to God that the only "new" thing in that tidbit was that he did it in the United Nations HQ building. He does that all the time, and I'm just not impressed. He'll keep parrotting the same non-sense over and over again, especially when that has been dismissed by many people. Let's see what Dumbya said to the assembly of people:

We have accomplished much in the last year — in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do — in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represent here have joined in the fight against global terror — and the people of the United States are grateful.

The "people of the United States" he is referring to are actually the neocons who support this war, and are grateful that the U.N. and others didn't stop them. They're not grateful for their government, but grateful that their interests are being achieved, regardless of who is being harmed in the process. He goes on to prattle some "emotional" historical nonsense about the U.N.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war — the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created a United Nations Security Council, so that — unlike the League of Nations — our deliberations would be more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Yeah, the will and wickedness of Bush destroyed Iraq and prolonged the Israel-Palestine conflict. The resolutions that he spoke of are most certainly not the 200+ resolutions that have been filed against Israel and have repeatedly been vetoed by the U.S. Security Council member, John Bolton, were they? And considering that it was his government that was installing puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, as did the previous warmongering, rightwing governments before him, I think he should have just kept his mouth shut: there is no way I am going to "respect" Bush for what he said regarding this.

Now, here's a part that is most definitely a ruse to guise his motives regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict:

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts — ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

If that is true, then please don't send bombs to Israel and complicitly screw up the infrastructures of both Gaza and Lebanon... please?

He then goes on to prattle about WMD's in Iraq, which were absolutely long-gone by the time he invaded, and then he goes on to implicitly threaten the United Nations:

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

That is, "Will the United Nations make a resolution acceptable to neoconservative demands? Will the United Nations let us do the resolutions in our favor? And if you don't, we'll turn the United Nations HQ into another Iraqi Oil Ministry (in case you didn't know, the Iraqi Oil Ministry was the first building captured in the invasion of Baghdad and cordoned off by military personnel). The hypocrisy stinks more than petroleum does in its natural form. He's too blind to see the action of the Coalition, and is of the belief that his neocons, and Israel, can "do no wrong"... Give me a !@#$iNg break.

But seriously, I'm wasting my time with a man who has the I.Q. of a toaster.

Saracen

Great... A "Unity" Government... or Another Attempt @ Coup D'etat?

2006-09-17T15:31:00.000-07:00

Palestinian politics is messy. Really messy. Not just because of how the Palestinians deal with the death, destruction and devastation that Israel deals them almost daily, but also because of internal affairs that go awry in favor of one faction over another, and therefore undermines the Palestinian Cause and any sense of unity amongst the Palestinian people and the leadership that supposedly represents them. While Fatah may have slimy hands, Hamas is undoubtedly not left with a clean slate, with all the terrorist attacks it carries out against innocent Israelis. However, regarding internal affairs, it's always the goons and snakes of Fatah that undermine any sort of unity or progress; Hamas doesn't do as much, though, as it has only recently ventured into the political sphere, but its politicians are as incompetent.

Recently, we've heard news of Mahmoud Abbas, probably the slimiest, sleaziest Fatah politician second to Mahmoud Dahlan, asking and appealing for a unity government, and "brokering" some sort of unity plan with Hamas. Yeah, and I can pop the tires of a 4X4 with a toothpick. Well, this thing really didn't last long. I know that another blog, Palestinian Pundit, covered this story better than I did, but what happened was that Abbas sought to dissolve the parliament in favor of creating a "unity" government.

However, the latest news seem to suggest the opposite: he completely broke off all talks with Hamas... that is, unless Hamas recognizes Israel. It just comes to show how much of a puppet and a crook this Abbas is: he's obviously vying for power. But why, exactly, did he suspend those talks?

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has frozen talks on forming a unity government after Hamas said it would not accept existing peace deals with Israel, two of his aides said.

I feel like making the word "existing" bigger, bolder, and probably with a red highlight right now, because I can't stress enough. Hamas won't accept the existing "peace deals" with Israel because Israel's peace deals, that of Oslo and Camp David, were a load of bull and nothing but subversion and acceptance to prolonged occupation, as well as denial of autonomy.

But there's more to this story than meets the eye. According to USAToday (thanks, Tony), Abbas is demanding more concessions from Hamas. Yasser Abd Rabbo (more like Yasser Abd Yasser because of his self-serving interests) claimed that Abbas was trying to convince Hamas to moderate and "modernize" their views. Even worse, officials in Fatah said that

Abbas will try to convince Bush that the alternative to a Fatah-Hamas government is civil war and ask him to soften the demands to allow Hamas to sign on to a coalition...

Great. I can almost smell the unity here, especially after Abbas planned to meet Bush next week, as well as Olmert, Israeli P.M. and Abbas's twin counterpart. Like most issues I come across, this is nothing new: America and Israel always deal with puppets within Arab and Palestinian governments so they may achieve their goals of seeking unity and discord. I believe Tony said it well in his post: this seeking for discord and disunity is always what the Zionist-American alliance sought from the very beginning. Look at what they did to Iraq, and what Israel did to Lebanon regarding Hizbullah (and the leaflets Israel dropped to turn the Lebanese against Hizbullah). Certainly, I wouldn't be surprised as well if Israel successfully incites a civil war, for Palestinian factions have indeed done so during the Lebanese Civil War. But what can you expect? Abbas is just another "favorite Palestinian" of Bush and Kundaraleeza Rice, eh? Considering that there is no Palestinian cabinet at the moment (the Hamas cabinet members resigned from their positions last week), Palestine's government is vulnerable to an Israeli takeover or a Fatah takeover on part of Abbas, for "security reasons". Oh, well, we'll see how this plays out, but these times are getting very edgy. And then again, Olmert might just be up to his old tricks, just like all Israel's prime ministers, from Menachem Begin to Ehud Barak.

Hamas has to come to its senses. I believe that it should renounce violence, as should Israel, for Israel is not above moral criticism. The question of recognition should only come when Palestinians in the pre-1967 areas are given a right to return to these areas, and all settlements are either removed or placed under Palestinian sovereignity. Furthermore, I also believe that Israel should stop all roadblocks and halt the projects that are dividing not only the Palestinian lands, but the Palestinian people. If it wants peace, it shouldn't at the same time hit the Palestinians below the belt. As for Abbas, that guy should be thrown into the slammer, along with all traitors in the Fatah and Hamas (yes, I said HAMAS) parties. If there should be unity, all traitors to the Palestinian cause should be told to change their ways. Yes, they should represent the Palestinian people in as patriotic a way as possible, as I am anti-Nationalist. An independent Palestine will only come out when there are no Palestinians in the government who would want to subvert any of Palestinian autonomy over Palestinian lands and give them up to the Zionist state. But then again, even as I muse and vie for such unity, I remain, sadly, pessimistic about the outcome.

Saracen

Moral Clarity and WWII Nostalgia

2006-09-13T18:49:00.000-07:00

Can America find moral clarity in it's memories of WWII?

In a series of speeches over the past couple of weeks, the Bush administration has tried to connect the GWOT (Global war on terror) to the WWII struggle against Nazism. When I read their statements, I figured they were becoming desparate. After all, it is common to call one's opponents Nazis out of desperation and it's commonplace in weak arguments (specifically Internet arguments, see Godwin's law). I've tried to write several posts about this topic but each line of research takes me far away from a core point. This is because the WWII analogy is a rich phenomena. It's a phenomena that involves historical narrative, America's national psychology, the echoes of the horrors of WWII, heroism, fear, viture, and the most complex feelings we have about ourselves as Americans. It involves more things too but I must avoid them to maintain focus. Like I wrote above, I've been trying to write about this for a couple of weeks.

While researching this issue I discovered that WWII nostalgia didn't come out of nowhere. In a piece titled The Good War on Terror, Christopher Hayes describes the emergence of WWII nostalgia in 90s popular culture:

The late ’90s was a strange time in American history. With the Cold War over, the country faced no overarching enemy for the first time in decades. The United States seemed possessed of no greater national purpose than making money through IPOs and an ever-expanding Dow. Our politics were dominated by the petty and trivial: from school uniforms to the president’s sex life.

Memories of former glory rushed in to fill this vacuum. In 1994, the 50th anniversary of D-Day prompted both an NBC special commemoration hosted by Tom Brokaw and the publication of historian Stephen Ambrose’s D-Day June 6, 1994: The Climactic Battle of World War II, which would go on to sell 800,000 copies. The book attracted the attention of Steven Spielberg—a man with a preternatural sense of the zeitgeist—who would launch the pop cultural phenomenon in all its excess in 1998 with Saving Private Ryan, which opened to rave reviews and grossed $433 million.

An explosion of associated products came on the heels of Saving Private Ryan’s commercial success: Brokaw’s three “Greatest Generation” books (which sold 5 million copies), a book about veterans of the Pacific Theater called Flags of Our Fathers (a film adaptation produced by Spielberg and directed by Clint Eastwood will be released this fall), and a clunking Bruce Willis vehicle called Hart’s War. With such an irresistible financial incentive, Ambrose would generate 10 more books between 1994 and 2001, including a distilled history of the war for “young readers” called The Good Fight. Tom Hanks, who starred in Saving Private Ryan, became a kind of WWII commemoration crusader, cutting a series of radio ads that advocated for a World War II memorial to be built on the Mall. After a seven-year-campaign, it was dedicated in 2004.

Nostalgia quickly descended into kitsch: In 1999, People named “The World War II Soldier” one of its “25 Most Intriguing People,” right next to Ricky Martin and Ashley Judd. But unlike so many pop culture phenomena, this one had legs, extending into the new millennium when Hollywood released the summer blockbuster Pearl Harbor in May 2001. Months later, HBO broadcast with great fanfare “Band of Brothers,” a miniseries based on Ambrose’s eponymous book about the exploits of the famed “E Company” as it fought its way across Europe. Produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, the series debuted on Sept. 9, 2001.

Hayes' piece sheds light on WWII nostalgia. It is not just another of the increasingly desparate arguments by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq. WWII nostaligia is a widespread cultural phenomena rooted in the 90s. In fact, Bush's campaign invoked it:

In his essay “Operation Enduring Analogy: World War II, the War on Terror and the Uses of Historical Memory,” David Hoogland Noon, a history professor at the University of Alaska, Southeast, writes that even in his first campaign George W. Bush “consistently referenced World War II not simply to justify his own policy aims, but more importantly as a cultural project as well as an ongoing gesture of self-making,” positioning himself as “an heir to the reputed greatest generation of American leaders.”

“In the world of our fathers, we have seen how America should conduct itself,” Bush said in a 1999 speech at the Citadel. Now, the moment had come “to show that a new generation can renew America’s purpose.” Throughout both his campaigns, Bush would go out of his way to criticize the dominant ethos of “If it feels good, do it,” instead calling for a “culture in which each of us understands we’re responsible for the decisions we make.”

There are many possible reasons as to why Bush emerged with political discourse built around nostalgia for WWII ("greatest generation" type discourse) and resentement for the perceived relativism of the 60s. These reasons could be the rise of megachurches and their brand of religiosity. It could be anger at President Clinton's impropieties. It could be a genuine admiration for the actions of America's again WWII veterans. It could be the rise of Clinton-reactive republicans and their conservative media mouthpieces. Either way, I don't think President George W. Bush is possible in an American without the culture wars.

Counter-culture resentment is only part of WWII nostalgia. The cultures might be furious but they are not real war. The nostalgia doesn't restrict itself to war as a metaphor, it focuses on real war. But this nostalgia doesn't really approach the complexities of the war experience, it focuses on the enemy and decisive action against that enemy:

The WWII that emerges from accounts of the late ’90s is one scrubbed clean of its moral complexity. There is no mention of American big business financing the build-up of the Nazi war machine, no America First campaign determined not to shed American blood for European Jews, no firebombing of civilians in Dresden. The war was difficult, yes, and bloody, but pure and just: a battle, not to put too fine a point on it, between good and evil.

In the hands of the men who would come to dominate American military policy in the Bush administration, this Manichean framework was a useful template to apply indiscriminately to any and all of the military confrontations they had long sought. To the neocons and some breakaway lefties, al-Qaeda members are “Islamofascists,” 21st century heirs to the murderous ideologies of Nazism, fascism and totalitarianism. It is always Munich 1938, every dictator is a “tyrant,” and anyone opposed to a state of perpetual war is guilty of “appeasement.”

In the militarism of the WWII nostalgia, America's enemies are clear and our only goal is their defeat. This militarism (and the war it demands) is "pure and just." It is a simple world where only the will to fight is necessary, there is no need to reflect on the fight itself. It is a world with no gray areas. It is a world without questions or comlexities. It is a world divided between friends and foes and a world constituted only through the fight itself.

In a world where moral problems are complex there are no easy answers. Contemporary America is such a world. It is natural that people yearn for simplier issues and apparent enemies. Whether it be poverty, disease, meaninglessness, bankruptcy, broken homes, or any other contemporary problem there is one salient feature of the worlds moral challenges; they are complex. It is no wonder that people desire to blame these complexities on the 60s and assume that all moral complexities have their origin in an ideology of relativism embodied by hippies or Clintons. It is no wonder that people look to the noble soldier of WWII and the clear evil of Nazism to escape problems like health care or poverty. So it isn't surprising that painting the whole world with a war against good and evil might serve some psychic needs, specifically the need for certainty.

But this type of certainty (or moral clarity as some call it) has a very negative effect:

Making WWII the touchstone for martial combat allowed the militarists we politely call “neoconservatives” to imbue all wars with the same moral purpose. The Greatest Generation nostalgia succeeded in helping to subtly shift the burden of proof, such that wars were presumed innocent and righteous, as opposed to the far more sane position that war is guilty until proven innocent.

If there’s a single guiding ethos for the Bush’s administration’s foreign policy, it is this: that contrary to the age-old insight about the “fog of war,” war brings moral clarity even as it clouds the senses. In the first days of the escalating missile and rocket strikes between Israel and Hezbollah, Dan Bartlett, a White House aide, explained that “[The president] mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”

I'm not sure the Bush administration is manipulating America through words that stimulate it's notalgia for WWII. I believe this nostalgia is responds to a very powerful need in America for meaning and certiainty. They could just as easily be manipulating the resentment many Americans have for liberalism, relativism, and what they see as the degeneracy of American society. But I happen to think this isn't purposeful manipulation, I believe that the Bush administration is a sucker for WWII nostalgia. I believe this administration believes that America has fallen from grace because of hippies and sexual liberation. Here is one reason I believe this:

Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.
"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."

Bush, his administration, and most of his supporters believe they have a unique role in history. They believe they are the good and just warrirors leading a global war against the progeny of Nazis and Communists. They believe this strongly enough that they will begin wars. I don't think that they can be swayed from this view because doubt would put one on the side of the enemy. They will resist this with every ounce of their strength because being against the enemy is the only moral identity they have and fighting the enemy is their only moral imperative.

Contradictions in the Policies of the American "War on Terrorism"

2006-09-12T18:01:00.000-07:00

As'ad Abu Khalil has recently published this excellent article that highlights the many contradictions in America's so-called "War on Terror", and underscores the aims of what is in reality a war of terror aimed at subverting the globe under political and economical hegemony. In it, he outlines what he indicates as double standards on part of the American government regarding its foreign policy, and how in effect Bush spreads not democracy, but dictatorship and corruption.

Bush saw 9-11 as an excuse to sacrifice the liberty and rights of his people in the name of National Security and in "defense" in this "war on terror". This manifested itself in the so-called "Patriot" Act, which should be renamed to the Treason Act, for betraying someone's privacy and freedom in the name of "security" is not at all Patriotic or even (ugh) Nationalistic. However, to Bush's advantage, 9-11 drew out more support for the President at first as it occurred during the first few months of his pResidency (in case you were wondering, I meant to stress on the "R" and downplay the "p"). The article itself continues to explain how Arab regimes are involved, and how this War of Terror is supplanting more terrorism, not "getting rid of it".

For the sake of time, I will outline the main points that As'ad has discussed. These main points involve goals of this farcical war that Bush himself has not mentioned, but which are in fact in effect as we speak. One of the goals involves:

الإصرار على وحدانية السيطرة الأميركية العالمية (سياسيا واقتصاديا وثقافيا) ومحاربة (بكل الوسائل) معارضيها.

Translated, this means strengthening the American political, cultural, and economical hegemony, and crushing down all opposition by any means possible. This was quite evident in the past 50 years, during the "Cold War", when America ousted many democratically-elected leaders of dozens of states for the sole purpose that those leaders resisted American interests in the region because they harm the interests of the local populace. Such states include Greece, Iran, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba, among many others. Sadly, it seems that most Nationalist American rightwing politicians are still stuck in a Cold-War era mentality: there's "us" and "them", even though "them" involves people largely disassociated with the "Clash of Civilizations" that America is continuously promoting as a chief propaganda buzzphrase for the so-called "War on Terror" (but I think they're getting smarter: a neocon on this forum once called me an "Izlamocentrist" for defending Islam, thereby scoring another point for neoconservative vocabulary).

While the second and third points pretty much outline the first point, but with emphasis on the Middle East and Islamic countries, and with the third point stating that diplomacy is not an option when it comes to crushing resistance to American demands, the fourth point is as follows:

فرض رقابة مشددة على العرب والمسلمين وتحركاتهم حول العالم, خصوصا في الدول الغربية.

, or surveillance on Muslims and Arabs and their whereabouts, especially in Western nations. While many other nations refuse to comply with such a policy, America's Muslims feel under constant scrutiny, with all the wiretapping that has been going on.

The fifth point involves something closer to home:

النظر إلى النموذج الصهيوني في فرض إرادة إسرائيل بالقوة المفرطة على الشعب الفلسطيني بعين الإعجاب، بالرغم من الفشل التاريخي للمشروع الصهيوني بسبب إرادة المقاومة والرفض لدى شعب فلسطين.

This refers to the rejection of Zionism by most Arabs and Muslims in the MidEast, and underscores the failure of Israel against Hizbullah during the late summer, and how Israel continues to undermine not only the PA, but passive Palestinian resistance. As'ad refers to places like Bil'in, a scene of passive resistance to Zionist landgrabbing and colonialism, and where such resistance is often crushed by the Israeli army, or is undermind by settler activity. This, of course, is terrorism: innocent civilians are driven to fear whenever they resist state policies that seek to harm them or uproot them from their homes. Nothing new, really, but America's silence in the issue seems to hint at the unwavering support for Israel, and complicity with crushing such passive resistance... or it may mean that Bush doesn't get his news from fair and balanced news sources.

America is also after this fifth goal:

الاستعانة بالأمم المتحدة عند الحاجة خصوصا بوجود أمين عام مطواع مثل كوفي أنان, وتجاهل المنظمة الدولية عند الحاجة أيضا.

It's not surprising that the U.S. has hypocritically made use of International Law to suit its own ends. International Law is usually against the smaller guys whenever the U.S. is in control, but let's cut to the chase. America has vetoed every last one of the 200+ resolutions filed against Israel for violations of international law. However, it used International Law to its own advanatage when it pointed out U.N. security resolutions in favor of the War on Iraq, which was unjustified to begin with. You might be as outraged as I am, but when you're talking about a neoconservative war machine that has been controlling the U.N. for over 50 years just to suit its own advantages, then you'll understand the duplicity behind the Bush Administration. Also,

عدم التمييز بين المنظمات العربية والإسلامية ووصف معارضي الهيمنة الأميركية بالإرهاب.

America seeks to blur the distinction between Arab and Muslim nations (which is probably advantageous in the sense that all Muslim nations might unite, but disadvantageous in the sense that the U.S. has a scapegoat to blame for the "mistakes" in his "War on Terror", and therefore unite the world against Muslims), and also associates all opponents of American imperialism with terrorism. That is in essence totalitarian: Bush seeks to shut out all criticism of his "War on Terror", which reminds me of the time he actually criticized Amnesty International for speaking out against the prisoner abuse common in American jails, like the famous one on Guantamo Bay. Now, I know I might have said this before, but think of a spoilt kid who is allowed to do whatever he wants. He does something wrong, and absolves himself from responsibility of his actions. Now, replace "kid" with "Bush" and you won't see much of a difference there.

The final point I will illustrate is pretty much the same as the first one, but it's more explicit:

محاولة تنصيب "حامد كرزاي" في كل بلدان العالم العربي وعدم السماح لحلفاء أميركا ولو بهامش صغير من حرية الحركة والتعبير.

This means installing a "Hamid Karzai" in every nation of this Earth (i.e. a leader who would mainly give in to America's economical and political demands at the expense of his own people, and allow for a pervasion of harmful elements of American culture that might corrupt the culture of the nation in question), even at the expense of the freedom of the people of the said nation. In extreme cases, the leader would be more like the Shah Reza Pahlevi of Iran, or the former Nazi collaborator and brutal anti-socialist dictator, George Papadopoulos. This, of course, is contradictory to America's stated goal of allowing nations to be democratic and being able to choose whatever leader they want, even if America's choice doesn't provide as much freedom and reform as the best one available.

I think these contradictions should be self-evident. Bush's empty use of "democracy", "freedom", and "civilization" are what they are: empty words that drive the neoconservative masses against Muslims and Arabs, as well as those who oppose American foreign policy, etc. I just hope that Americans who voted for Bush for his second term come to their senses and vote for a leader who seriously knows the meanings of the 3 aforementioned words. Only time will tell...

Saracen

Patriotism: a Reasonable Sentiment

2006-09-09T16:50:00.000-07:00

It's been quite a long while since I have last condemned the irrational sentiment that is Nationalism, and how it leads people to blind and unquestionable support of the nation that they belong to. I didn't discuss Patriotism in the detail that it deserves, and on that, I will do so now. But first, let's define patriotism:

Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' (Latin patria), by individuals and groups.

However, there is no mention of negation of support for other nation states in general; if so, then that would be Nationalism, not Patriotism.

But what else characterizes Patriotism? First, let's see what makes a Patriot. A Patriot is someone who stands up for the core values of his/her nation state and at the same time morally questions the actions of the government of that state. Nationalism requires that those who adhere to it never question what their government does, as their government always does what's "good" for the state, or what is in the best interests of the state... even if those interests harm the interests and/or well-being of other states. Patriotism, on the other hand, requires that a nation achieve its interests while at the same time strictly avoiding detrimenting the interests and/or well-being of another state that just happens to be involved in the certain affairs of achieving that certain interest.

A Patriot, therefore, loves his/her state, but does not regard it superior to other states. A Patriot is also aware that other nation-states are important to the people of that state in the same way that the Patriot's state is important to him/her. In a world full of nation-states, all nation-states are regarded by Patriots as being equal, but the only thing that ties a Patriot with his/her state is that he/she identifies with that state. The world is a neighborhood of nation-states living next to each other, and its inhabitants make up the "family" living in that nation-state. A good neighbor, then, is one who knows how to respect himself/herself and those living around him/her. Therefore, a good neighbor is a Patriot. A Nationalist, however, disregards the needs of others, and their privacy/integrity, including his/her own, and thus makes a bad neighbor.

Therefore, a Patriot respects the sovereignity of all nation-states should they recognize his/her own. This means that, contrary to Nationalism, Patriotism holds that the govermental/political institutions that control the state are neither superior nor inferior to the corresponding institutions in other states, and denies any involvement that would intervene in the affairs of these political institutions. Patriotism upholds the moral that all nations have the right to self-rule, and that each nation, even if it can't govern itself, should be left so that the people of that nation gradually usurp the current political discrepancy and fix it by themselves. Also, as a Patriot, one keeps in mind that other nations have different needs and requirements, and therefore a political institution imposed on that state might have adverse consequences.

What makes Patriotism even more beautiful than it really appears is that it also delineates and undermines any attempt at escaping from accountability for actions carried out by the government that are in clear violation of international and/or humanitarian law. By this, Patriotism acknowledges that those in the government are men, not gods, and therefore their actions can be either right or wrong. There are a lot of governments out there that commit indefensible crimes, and yet nationalists find any way whatsoever to justify the crime or clear the government from any wrongdoing. Sometimes, such governmental actions may not be in the best interest of the people, and may in fact harm them. Therefore, Patriots take the stand and dissent, for dissent is the highest form of Patriotism. A Patriot acknowledges what his/her government has wronged against others, whether it includes the people of the same nation or the people of another nation. In that way, a government may therefore take full responsibility of the actions it commits and works to find a solution and implement it. This restores the integrity of the nation-state, not just the government.

Having said that, I regard myself as a Patriot. I acknowledge what the PLO (Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization) has done to innocent Lebanese, Israelis and even Palestinians during its first years, and I am at odds with the Palestinian Authority to begin with. Many of its members are self-serving, and do not work for the good of the people. I also condemn Hamas's terrorism against Israelis as much as I condemn Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians and other Arabs. I am not a blind follower of my people, the Palestinians. I know our cause is just, and some day, God willing, we will be free from the Israeli occupation. However, I stand against those who "hijack" the Palestinian cause for their ends, or take it to a Nationalistic and racist extreme. I also despise Zionist Nationalists who seek to oppose any peace settlement and advocate more control on the Palestinian areas and people. I am Anti-Nationalist in general, and I already explained why I believe that Nationalism is an irrational sentiment. I am a Patriot: I love my nation, but I love humanity as well, and my nation is not above nor below other nations.

Patriotism is a seriously reasonable sentiment. It's better to be a Patriot, and at the same time condemn Nationalism and whatever forms that seek to obliterate the identities of others, as well as their right to identify themselves. I'm not interested in politics, which is why I view these affairs as an observer. I side with no one, but I identify myself with the Palestinian people. That doesn't make you any more or less Israeli, Arab, American, English, Chinese, Japanese, Pakistani, Indian, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Canadian, Brazilian or whatever nationality you identify yourself with. Be proud of who you are, and at the same time acknowledge humanity in that all people are the same; where they come from or what nation they identify with is of no importance when it comes to dealing with them as people.

So, I therefore conclude with the same advice I gave you last time: Be a Patriot, not a Nationalist.

Saracen

The Basis of Religious Liberalism

2006-09-07T08:29:00.000-07:00

Liberalism is a popular political movement. It is mainly secular in nature. However, a new breed of liberalism is on the rise that is based on the same good principles of secular liberalism. That breed of liberalism is religious liberalism, and I'm going to tell you more about it.

Whenever you think of religion and government at the same time, the only brand that comes to mind is theocracy. You think of nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. You might also think of the ancient kingdoms ruled by David and then his son, Solomon. Repressive rules come to mind: men and women are probably segregated as much as possible. Gun control is enforced, drugs are regulated (I hate drugs, because of what they do to your body, but regulating medicinal drugs is ridiculous), modes of entertainment are almost completely prohibited in public, among other things. Also, women are forced to cover their entire bodies. You feel that such a conservative society is close-minded and not open to principles of freedom and multiculturalism.

Such a government would be authoritarian in nature, and, like most authoritarian governments, would seek to control your life and what you do bit by bit. You could say that such a government is "playing" the role of a higher power, ultimately God. Regardless of religious beliefs, God is the Ultimate Authority, and no human being can usurp His Majesty and His position. And it is our job as believers in God to usurp and turn the tables on anyone who seeks to take that position. That's initiating a religiously liberal rule.

Hang on... what about the code of religious liberalism? That is, what is it and what's the basis of it? The idea is that God is the Ultimate Authority, and that He created us so as to test us and see if we follow His Word or not. It is not up to anyone else other than a certain person to define his/her own actions and carry them out; in the end, God will judge the person for his/her actions. Gun control is abolished: whether the person decides to use it for good (defense) or bad (murder) is up to him/her. Drugs shouldn't be regulated, but, again, everyone has a choice on whether to use it or not. Abortion should be met with the same perspective. Also, privatization should be maximized: the government should not seek to practice unnecessary authority and intrude into fiscal efficiencies. Affirmative action and other racist policies should be erased, because in the eyes of God, we are all equal. Taxes should be minimized, as giving from the less able (citizens) to the more able (government) is akin to stealing, and we all know how God views this crime.

Well, there's more to religious liberalism, but I'm going to be dealing with it in parts, this time in accordance with Islamic teachings (and I assume henceforth that they are also compatible with teachings from other religions). I will be covering abortion, drugs, fiscal matters (namely taxation), affirmative action, and other things. The series will also get you deeper into my political philosophy, and will help you learn more about it. I know that many of you don't believe in God, but if you think that religiously-minded people can't become liberals... think again.

Saracen

The Lull Before the Storm's Full Fury?

2006-09-04T07:12:00.000-07:00

For the past few weeks, Israel and Lebanon have faced an uneasy ceasefire. However, there have been other developments that seem to indicate tensions that are possibly on the rise... again. While Hizbullah stands up for itself in demanding that UNIFIL forces should not disarm its militias, Israel seems to finally give way to negotiations, amidst criticisms from its own people and other MP's in the Knesset, especially, surprisingly, rightwingers who demand for Olmert's resignation (so do reservists, who have camped outside the Knesset demanding Olmert to step down from power).

What I find strange, though, is that the blame lies on those who stood up for Lebanon when Israel pummelled it with mortar fire and "precision" bombs. That's for due part, since Hizbullah has been notorious for anti-Zionist rhetoric. On the other hand, the use of force was imbalanced, and rhetoric resounding from Israeli officials and politicians only went as far, yet rarely have they been reported in the Western media. Yet, there has been this new up and coming development regarding Israeli officials facing war crime allegations, according to Al Jazeera. This is a good development: Israel just can't escape justice, because justice has a way of finding those who have committed injustice, or have been complicit with it. The use of rhetoric on part of Israelis in public conferences might be used against those same officials. This, of course, should be noted. For example, there was this one Israeli official who agreed that if Hizbullah were to strike with rockets, Israel would respond by

"getting rid of a village in Lebanon".

Doesn't sound so pleasant now, doesn't it?

There's more. Reuters reported on Olmert's threat to Hizbullah that if Tel Aviv were attacked, Lebanon's entire infrastructure would be wiped out. Strange that this website picked it up, but none of the other news agencies did. The hawkish defense minister, Amir Peretz, has repeatedly threatened Lebanon throughout the course of the war, and, with the blood of hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinians on his hands, could very well join the line of Zionist war criminals like Ariel Sharon and Moshe Ya'alon, who was notorious for carrying out the Qana massacre in Lebanon 10 years ago.

Returning to Palestine, the situation isn't looking up. With the E-1 project still in full swing, Olmert's appeals for peace are becoming ever more farcical. These "peace appeals" started as a promise if his party won the elections in March. Yet, even then, he wasn't willing to concede:

"We must preserve the main settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] and we will fix the route of the security barrier beyond which we will no longer remain."

This is why I hate politicians in general: they make false promises in their election campaigns, then resort to their own selfish desires afterwards. The problem is that the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim literally splits the West Bank in 2. Furthermore, Israel's unilateralist activity continues in defiance of Palestinian demands, as settlement expansion has sharply increased in the past few weeks. Worse still, Israeli settler population has swelled. I wouldn't consider this a problem if Ma'ale Adumim was incorporated into a future Palestinian state should the two-state solution work out. However, a larger settler population still under Israeli jurisdiction in the West Bank would most likely drain out water resources into its own territory, and choke Palestinian economy operations in the West Bank.

These actions are going to get Israel into a quagmire. I still believe, though, that Israel can get out of this mess by negotiating with the Lebanese government, and dismantling all settlements in the West Bank if not allowing them to be incorporated with the future Palestinian state. But I'd like to think that what we are witnessing is, in my pessimistic outlook, a lull before the storm's full fury. The conflict might still go on, and the lives of many innocent Palestinians, Lebanese, Arabs and Israelis are at risk.

You never know these days.

Saracen

Ahmedinajad is NOT Hitler

2006-08-28T13:18:00.000-07:00

"This is 1935, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we've seen," said Newt Gingrich to a startled editor at Human Events.

This Ahmadinejad=Hitler meme has been repeated endlessly among mass media conservatives in the United States. They usually defend this meme by saying that Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Hardly anyone in the US media is challenging this idea. Nobody is looking at Ahmadinejad's original statement nor are they examining it in context. It seems to me like many people want this statement, taken out of context, to define President Ahmadinejad.

Why won't these people report on this statement by Ahmadinejad?

"Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression."

Or this statement?

"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections."

(source)

Why not report this statement by Khamenei:

Their other issue is [their assertion] that Iran seeks [a] nuclear bomb. It is an irrelevant and wrong statement, it is a sheer lie. We do not need a nuclear bomb. We do not have any objectives or aspirations for which we will need to use a nuclear bomb. We consider using nuclear weapons against Islamic rules. We have announced this openly. We think imposing the costs of building and maintaining nuclear weapons on our nation is unnecessary.

(source)

It seems to me that these quotes are not used because mass media conseratives like the Ahmadinejad=Hitler meme. This meme reinforces their worldview and reinforces their desire for war against Iran.

Here is another development in the continuing efforts by some to cause a war between the US and Iran. It seems that a recent report assessing the threat from Iran was written by Fred Fleitz, who seems to be a partisan hack (source). Make no mistake, there is a huge effort by some US conservatives to bring war against the Iranian people.

Although the Ahmadinejad=Hitler meme is the primary focus of this post, I'd like to share a few other thoughts about the situation with Iran.

Number 1, I don't think war against Iran can be justified unless it was to attack another nation. The possibility that Iran could have a nuclear weapon one day is real but I don't think that means the end of the world. I don't even think the world should impose sanctions on Iran, sanctions would hurt the Iranian people and stunt the progress of the country.

Number 2, Iran should let inspectors verfiy their enrichment capabilities. If they do this, I believe that a lot of the world's concerns will be aleviated.

Number 3, any moral person in the US should do their best to steer the US away from attacking Iran.

It is my sincerest hope that the US works with Iran. I hope that my children will not be raised in a world where the US and Iran are enemies. This can only be accomplished by cooperation with Iran, war will only extend the unfortunate enmity between my country and Iran.

World War III or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran

2006-08-22T14:34:00.000-07:00

by Heather Wokusch
-February 19, 2006

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table."
-George W. Bush, February 2005

Witnessing the Bush administration’s drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it’s official: under orders from Vice President Cheney’s office, the Pentagon has developed “last resort” aerial-assault plans using long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear weapons.

How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the pretext of protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that Iran has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing inspectors to “go anywhere and see anything,” yet those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have not.

The nuclear threat from Iran is hardly urgent. As the Washington Post reported in August 2005, the latest consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.” The Institute for Science and International Security estimated that while Iran could have a bomb by 2009 at the earliest, the US intelligence community assumed technical difficulties would cause “significantly delay.” The director of Middle East Studies at Brown University and a specialist in Middle Eastern energy economics both called the State Department’s claims of a proliferation threat from Iran’s Bushehr reactor “demonstrably false,” concluding that “the physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.”

So there’s no urgency - just a bad case of déjà vu all over again. The Bush administration is recycling its hype over Hussein’s supposed WMD threat into rhetoric about Iran, but look where the charade got us last time: tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, a country teetering on civil war and increased global terrorism.

Yet the stakes in Iran are arguably much higher.

Consider that many in the US and Iran seek religious salvation through a Middle Eastern blowout. “End times” Christian fundamentalists believe a cataclysmic Armageddon will enable the Messiah to reappear and transport them to heaven, leaving behind Muslims and other non-believers to face plagues and violent death. Iran’s new Shia Islam president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to a competing version of the messianic comeback, whereby the skies turn to flames and blood flows in a final showdown of good and evil. The Hidden Imam returns, bringing world peace by establishing Islam as the global religion.

Both the US and Iran have presidents who arguably see themselves as divinely chosen and who covet their own country’s apocalypse-seeking fundamentalist voters. And into this tinderbox Bush proposes bringing nuclear weapons.

As expected, the usual suspects press for a US attack on Iran. Neo-cons who brought us the “cakewalk” of Iraq want to bomb the country. There’s also Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, busy coordinating the action plan against Iran, who just released the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review calling for US forces to “operate around the globe” in an infinite “long war.” One can assume Rumsfeld wants to bomb a lot of countries.

And there’s Israel, keen that no other country in the region gains access to nuclear weapons. In late 2002, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Iran should be targeted “the day after” Iraq was subdued, and Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, recently warned that if he wins the presidential race in March 2006, Israel will “do what we did in the past against Saddam’s reactor,” an obvious reference to the 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq. It doesn’t help that Iran’s Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a myth and said that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

In the eyes of the Bush administration, however, Iran’s worst transgression has less to do with nuclear ambitions or anti-Semitism than with the petro-euro oil bourse Tehran is slated to open in March 2006. Iran’s plan to allow oil trading in euros threatens to break the dollar’s monopoly as the global reserve currency, and since the greenback is severely overvalued due to huge trade deficits, the move could be devastating for the US economy.

So we remain pedal to the metal with Bush for an attack on Iran.

But what if the US does go ahead and launch an assault in the coming months? The Pentagon has already identified 450 strategic targets, some of which are underground and would require the use of nuclear weapons to destroy. What happens then?

You can bet that Iran would retaliate. Tehran promised a “crushing response” to any US or Israeli attack, and while the country – ironically - doesn’t possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts ground forces estimated at 800,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world’s oil supply is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of ocean which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran’s deputy foreign minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn’t be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting energy prices into the stratosphere.

An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, especially provoking the Shiite Muslim populations. Considering that Shiites largely run the governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn’t bode well for calm in the region. It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran’s, potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shiite rebellion in Iraq would further endanger US troops and push the country deeper into civil war.

Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to offend during his period in office. Just last month, Russia snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran’s nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that China will not sit idly by and watch Tehran fall to the Americans.

Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which can be dumped in favor of euros. Bush crosses them at his nation’s peril.

Yet another danger is that an attack on Iran could set off a global arms race - if the US flaunts the non-proliferation treaty and goes nuclear, there would be little incentive for other countries to abide by global disarmament agreements either. Besides, the Bush administration’s message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you’re safe, and if you don’t, you’re fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn’t as well and risks attack, yet that other “Axis of Evil” country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. It’s also hard to justify striking Iran over its allegedly developing a secret nuclear weapons program, when India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) did the same thing and remain on good terms with Washington.

The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites with conventional weapons, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating “bunker buster” bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous.

Given what’s at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes defensively, it’s doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council.

Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with Iran, and according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the domestic Israeli lobby in Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air and tank force to be stationed in its territory. Turkey’s crucial role in an attack on Iran explains why there’s been a spurt of high-level US visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss. In fact, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December 2005 that Goss had told the Turkish government it would be “informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened” and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran “on the day in question.”

It’s intriguing that both Valerie Plame (the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to the media after her husband criticized the Bush administration’s pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq) and Sibel Edmonds (the former FBI translator who turned whistleblower) have been linked to exposing intelligence breaches relating to Turkey, including potential nuclear trafficking. And now both women are effectively silenced.

The US public sees the issue of Iran as backburner, and has little eagerness for an attack on Iran at this time. A USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll from early February 2006 found that a full 86% of respondents favored either taking no action or using economic/diplomatic efforts towards Iran for now. Significantly, 69% said they were concerned “that the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”

And that begs the question: how can the US public be convinced to enter a potentially ugly and protracted war in Iran?

A domestic terrorist attack would do the trick. Just consider how long Congress went back and forth over reauthorizing Bush’s Patriot Act, but how quickly opposing senators capitulated following last week’s nerve-agent scare in a Senate building. The scare turned out to be a false alarm, but the Patriot Act got the support it needed.

Now consider the fact that former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi has said the Pentagon’s plans to attack Iran were drawn up “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.” Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, “As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.”

Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon’s plan should be used in response to a terrorist attack on the US, yet is not contingent upon Iran actually having been responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.

That’s the worst-case scenario, but even the best case doesn’t look good. Let’s say the Bush administration chooses the UN Security Council over military power in dealing with Iran. That still leaves the proposed oil bourse, along with the economic fallout that will occur if OPEC countries snub the greenback in favor of petro-euros. At the very least, the dollar will drop and inflation could soar, so you’d think the administration would be busy tightening the nation’s collective belt. But no. The US trade deficit reached a record high of $725.8 billion in 2005, and Bush & Co.’s FY 2007 budget proposes increasing deficits by $192 billion over the next five years. The nation is hemorrhaging roughly $7 billion a month on military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is expected to hit its debt ceiling of $8.184 trillion next month.

So the white-knuckle ride to war continues, with the administration’s goals in Iran very clear. Recklessly naïve and impetuous perhaps, but clear: stop the petro-euro oil bourse, take over Khuzestan Province (which borders Iraq and has 90% of Iran’s oil) and secure the Straits of Hormuz in the process. As US politician Newt Gingrich recently put it, Iranians cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, and they also "cannot be trusted with their oil."

But the Bush administration cannot be trusted with foreign policy. Its military adventurism has already proven disastrous across the globe. It’s incumbent upon each of us to do whatever we can to stop this race towards war.

"Israeli-American Puppets in Lebanon" and Other Silly Arabian Nights

2006-08-22T12:18:00.000-07:00

It shouldn't be a surprise. In one of their comical "daring raids", Israeli commandoes violated the ceasefire by attacking "unidentified targets" in Lebanon's south with warplanes and helicopters. Hizbullah troops have claimed that this raid was "foiled". However, unlike their previous below-the-belt attacks, Israel actually admitted to carrying out this one, which was in violation of the UN ceasefire. However, just take a look at what the I"D"F said about the raid:

"Special forces carried out an operation to disrupt terror actions against Israel with an emphasis on the transfer of munitions from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah. The operation achieved all its aims and Israel will continue to prevent and thwart such shipments to Hezbollah until they are stopped."

Notice the wording. First, Israel uses the "terror" card/buzzword, then refers to the polarization technique: it shifts our focus to believing that Israel's "aims" are for the benefit of all, even though such a thing would benefit Israel only. I'd like to call a spade a spade: Israel, regardless of so-called "justifications" or "explanations", has nonetheless violated the ceasefire, and should pay reparations for such a thing. While the pretext used was to stop arms flow, remember that Israel is already supplied by the United States, the leading manufacturer of military hardware and munitions. Just so you know, Israel violated that ceasefire again, so this is what you can expect from Israel.

Let's now turn to the Lebanese government, a government that has rarely achieved stability over the past few years, ever since the death of former PM Rafik Hariri. The Lebanese government, like a handful of Arab governments, is made up of many parties, among them Walid Jumblatt's Democratic Front, Nabih Berri's Amal Group, Samir Gaagaa's Lebanese Forces (Kataeb, which has a reputation for being rightwing and pro-Israeli), Hassan Nasrallah's Hizbullah, and many others. The prime minister in charge now is Fouad Siniora, who seriously is, in my opinion, a seniora. While I appreciate the threat they gave Israel concerning the cessation of all troop deployment, I am still skeptical of their overall stance on this issue.

Why is that? I mean, they threatened to halt troop deployment when Israel violated the ceasefire. But there's more to this fairy tale than meets the eye. I was watching CNN the other day, where Elias Murr, the Lebanese Defense Minister, made it clear that if anyone were to attack Israel via rocket fire, they would be considered as "criminals". This came after he talked about how the Army would defend Lebanon. Substitute "Lebanon" with "Israel", and you realize that surely he would have been more up front. On the other hand, the Daily Star of Lebanon reported a different story. Nada Bakri wrote,

The Lebanese government vowed Sunday to respond "harshly" to any internal attempts to breach the week-old UN-brokered cease-fire with Israel, in an implicit warning to Hizbullah and other armed groups in the country. "Any violation, any rocket that would give Israel justification will be treated harshly. It will be considered as direct collaboration with the Israeli enemy," Defense Minister Elias Murr said during a news conference at his ministry.

"The Lebanese Army will be very tough in dealing with such an issue," the minister said, adding that those responsible "will be tried and referred to a military tribunal."

Call me a cynic, but I am usually doubtful of politicians in general. They tend to control the message that they deliver with wording like this, referring that they would attack their own people for the sake of undermining an Israeli aggression, referring to an aggression against Israel as a collaboration for Israel. But let's take a look at his senior, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. That guy is just incompetent. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Siniora is a former finance minister and chairman of the banking holding company Group Méditerranée.

His former occupation alone is an indication of his incompetence as a prime minister. However, there's more to this. Siniora hasn't been doing much but talking, even crying, in front of press cameras. Moreover, other parliament members have been undermining any action that would be akin to an action from an independent Lebanese government standing against a full-fledged Israeli invasion. According to the same article in the SF Chronicle, parliament members like Saad Hariri and even Nabih Berri are working behind the scenes in order to bring an end to this onslaught, through what the article refers to as "foreign patrons". The mention of a Saudi foreign patron means that this involves American politicians as well, and this could lead to a deal which would be more acceptable to the politically and militarily aggressive United States and Israel. Even worse, there is a huge chance that the negotiations will swerve towards the way of the U.S. and Israel, with a disarmament condition being imposed on Hizbullah. A possible disarmament would prove to be the activator of a chain reaction that would lead to the Lebanese government being painted in the crosshairs of anti-imperialists. Allbriton writes that

If Hezbollah is defeated, however, any deal -- which almost certainly would include the disarmament of Hezbollah as called for in United Nations' Security Council Resolution 1559 -- will be seen as being imposed by outsiders and would threaten Saniora's government by allowing Hezbollah to paint it as a puppet in the service of Lebanon's enemies. The threat of sectarian violence would loom dangerously.

While Elias Murr is confident that such a breach of ceasefire from the Lebanese side would not come from Hizbullah, it still doesn't convince me that Murr is serving the Lebanese people more than he is serving Israel: the Lebanese Army, according to The Daily Star article provided above, is guarding the Lebanese-Syrian border, which itself is not defined, though one can see why it would do so (stopping arms flow).

The balance of power is proving to be unstable: Hizbullah has a trump card to play against the government if it steps out of line and does not fulfill the demands of the Lebanese people. What should be done in this case in order to return everything to normal is to first rebuild Lebanon's infrastructure from ground up. Negotiations should pass on with all parties involved excluding quartet powers, save for the U.N. and the E.U. The Lebanese prisoners should be exchanged for the Israeli soldiers still in Hizbullah's custody, and all land mines and other unexploded munitions still under Lebanese soil be sweeped from the battle zones of Beirut and southern Lebanon. Moreover, Israel should withdraw from Shebaa farms, as this would benefit Israel by discouraging Hizbullah attacks (Hizbullah maintains a militia under the pretext of Shebaa Farms' occupation by Israel) and benefit Lebanon by regaining the land that was stolen from them during the 1967 war (which didn't even involve Lebanon to begin with). The Lebanese Army should also keep an eye out for Israeli operatives and military personnel with the cruel intent of aggressing against Lebanon. Finally, democratic elections should come to pass that do not include any sort of fraud, etc., and, hopefully, not the rise to power of some Israeli-American puppet in Lebanon.

Saracen

Iraq's "Stability"

2006-08-19T12:59:00.000-07:00

The assurance card has been played too many times and for far too long. It's just that whenever a politician speaks of "order", chaos ensues, as if chaos itself is an allergic reaction on part of the public to any false claim about such "order". The thing is, if you take a look at the headlines in the past few days, you'll still find the same old, lame old chaos looming around. People everywhere are under threat, even newspaper sellers (among them who sell government propaganda outlets to the public). According to Hussein Ali of the Institute of War and Peace, newspaper sellers were occasionally threatened at gun point my militia men and told not to sell newspapers, as they are usually printed by Shi'ite/governmental officials. But that's not what really damns the story. What really does is the last few lines of the report. It explicitly states that the militants have more control than the government, which still dispenses its "death squads" that go around and kill Sunnites, whether innocent or militant.

If that's not the only thing that is bothering the inhabitants of Iraq, there's much to be said. For example, there's also the threat faced against aid workers in Iraq, who are pressed against a wall like most innocent civilians are. IRIN tells us that things aren't going as well as planned: aid, while not plentiful, is also not being delivered properly. Aid workers are being threated for delivering supplies to a group of people of same religion, ethnicity, color, etc. It seems, then, that aid workers are being attacked by those who want sectarian strife. Perhaps they are the same ones attacking newspaper sellers?

Kirkuk is not left alone like other small-time Iraqi cities and towns, but is in fact feeling quite a lot of the impulses of civil war and strife. A report, also by IRIN, tells us that 190,000 people have been displaced as a result of what the report calls "increased violence over [Kirkuk] land claims". This isn't new: violence in Iraq is on the rise, and terrorism has taken its effect. What terrorism? Terrorism on part of ALL parties involved, even the Coalition. While the militants reign in control, the government just sits around and gets to talk about "order" in order to maintain their "image" and acquire a false sense of security and control... all the while maintaining servitude to the "higher powers" in the White House.

That was just a small sample of the mess that Iraq has been in the past few weeks. The media diversion to Lebanon has done quite much to cover the horrors and atrocities taking place in Iraq, which has beyond doubt tumbled into the abyss of chaos. Thankfully, the situation in Lebanon, while still volatile, has calmed down considerably in the past few days, but Iraq is not seeing a similar silver lining amongst the clouds of death that loom over the entire country. But what I'm focusing here is on the farce of the "stability" issue, or, as I've called it before, the "order" trump card, used by many politicians, not just in Iraq alone. Israeli politicians have used time and time again to justify the military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (or, more accurately, all of Palestine). I'd like to turn your attention to an article by Counterpunch veteran Patrick Cockburn. He commented quite much, especially on the recent leaders of Iraq who are giving Americans and other inhabitants of this miserable planet such false pretenses of order, ever since Nuri Al Maliki, Iraqi PM, visited Congress and spoke out against "Godless terrorists" or somewhat. Bush was happy that his new pet was obedient. Cockburn writes,

Civil war is raging across central Iraq. Baghdad, a city whose population is almost the same as London, is splitting into hostile and heavily armed districts. Minorities, be they Sunni or Shia, are being killed or forced to flee. People dare not even take their furniture in case this might alert their neighbors to their departure and lead to their deaths. Sunni no longer let the mostly Shia police enter their districts. "If this isn't civil war," a senior Iraqi official said this weekend, "I don't know what is."

It is at this moment that the new Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, went on his travels to his sponsors in the West, denying that Iraq is sliding into civil war. He spoke confidently about disarming militias. "When our so-called leaders go to Washington they always produce a rosy picture of what is happening in Iraq for the Americans, though they know it is a lie," sighed one veteran Iraqi politician.

What Cockburn documented was simply what one could expect out of any slimy politician for that matter. Disorder is disorder, no matter how much you try to spin it. I've seen some apologists claim that "it's just a war" or it's some sort of syndrome. Even worse, others have resorted to racist excuses, blaming it on the Arabs because they "just love to kill each other". In real life, nothing happens without a reason. The sectarianism and distrust of the government couldn't be more evident. While predominantly Shi'te officials are increasing their stranglehold on Baghdad's Sunnite districts, other Sunnite pockets in the city are resisting all governmental forces from interfering. Cockburn continues to comment on the Iraqi government and why it has to date not served its people. He writes,

Iraqi leaders are not what they seem. They live in the Green Zone, the heavily fortified enclave guarded by US troops, in the heart of Baghdad. Many never leave it except for extensive foreign travel. Eighteen months ago an Iraqi magazine claimed to have discovered that at one point the entire cabinet was out of the country at the same time. The government remains reliant on the US. One former minister told me: "There is a culture of dependency. Part of the time the Americans treat us as a colony, part of the time as an independent country." Mr al-Maliki only became Prime Minister because the US and Britain were determined to get rid of his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Mr al-Maliki is inexperienced, personally isolated without his own kitchen cabinet, guarded by American guards and heavily reliant on shadowy US advisers.

While this may seem like an opinion, I pretty much share the same outlook. I mean, take a look at the situation: while he speaks of order and "disarming militants", people are dying by the hour. The only thing he controls is the Green Zone and an Iraq that comes from the figment of his wildest imaginations. This literally means that he may be the leader of a government, but has no independence and no hold over any part of Iraq. Militias are roaming the streets, and the situation goes as far to encourage their growth and presence. And all the while, violence still rages on, while Maliki can smile and dictate out tomorrow's "rosy" headlines. Ah, well, what do you expect from an American puppet? If this isn't enough, wait till you hear what Cockburn has to say about the security forces in Iraq:

For instance, its own intelligence organization should be essential to a government fighting for its life against a violent insurgency. At first sight, Iraq might appear to have one under Major-General Mohammed al-Shahwani, but it has no budget because it is funded directly by the CIA, to the tune of $200-300m (£110-160m) a year and, not surprisingly, it is to the CIA that it first reports. Not surprisingly, Iraqis will need a lot of convincing that Mr al-Maliki is not one more American pawn. In theory he should be in charge of a substantial army force. The number of trained Iraqi soldiers and police has grown from 169,000 in June 2005 to 264,000 this June. But the extra 105,000 armed men have not only made no difference to security in Iraq but that security has markedly deteriorated over the past year. The reason is that the armed forces put their allegiance to their own communities - Kurd, Sunni or Shia - well before their loyalty to the state. Shia do not believe they will be defended from a pogrom by a Sunni units and the Sunni feel the same way about Shia units.

This is why the militias are growing in strength. Everybody wants an armed militia from their own community to defend their neighborhoods. In any case the largest political parties making up the present Iraqi government - the Kurds and the two biggest Shia religious parties - all have their private armies which they are not going to see dissolved. Not only is Mr al-Maliki's suggestion that the militiamen might be stood down untrue but the trend is entirely the other way. The army and police are themselves becoming sectarian and ethnic militias. This makes absurd George Bush's and Tony Blair's claim that at some stage the American-trained Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to stand alone.

The thing is, there is so much distrust in Iraq that none of the people there are ever going to dissolve their real allegiances to their sects and groups, ever since Saddam's government was toppled. While I hate Saddam with all my heart, at least he treated Iraqis like Iraqis, and not like Kurds, Sunnites, Shiites, etc. What's being encouraged is a sort of tribal warfare environment: every group has militias defending it, and pockets of resistance are being met with ambivalent attitudes. While Shi'ites remain loyal to their militiamen, they are also met with the side the government represents. You can say that Iraq is now in a state of anarchy. Unity is non-existent, and each group/militia has control of a certain district or neighborhood, which is quite a small unit in such a large city.

Is this going to get worse? I mean, Bush already rejected pullout calls, and thus implicitly assures Iraqis that American colonial control is not going away that fast. With incidents like this stampede on the rise, things aren't looking up in Iraq. Is it beyond hopeless? I don't know. Iraqis all over should denounce this growing civil strife and distrust... this fitna... and work together to topple the government and instate a more democratic rule that represents all Iraqis as Iraqis, not as Sunnites or Kurds or Shi'ites or whatever else there may be in this war-torn country. I pray for the betterness of Iraq, not for it to get plunged into some conflict that will have the Coalition take advantage of Iraq and her resources. The antiwar committee, while gaining growing support, is also not doing much. There must not only be protests and petitions, but public speech battles and railings and sit-ins against those very neocons that are in power. They know they are wrong, and their time is coming. The clock is ticking for those criminals, crooks, and liars, because in the end, justice will be served.

Saracen