Middle East

First, driftglass points out an obvious--although previously unnoticed--problem with the neocon claims that there's is no civil war in Iraq: So if there is a Civil War, then we should leave, because there is no way for us to referee such a thing. But if there is no Civil War, and therefore no looming threat of massive, pitched and Civil-War-like bloodshed if we leave, then the Iraqis have obviously "Stood up". And it is time for us to stand down and go h ome. Read the whole thing. Then John Aravosis reminds us that the failures of this war are not Democratic ones, but Republican, when he…
Jonathan Hari of TNR bravely went undercover and joined a cruise hosted by the National Review. That is a heroic sacrifice on behalf of the Coalition of the Sane, and no amount of satire could do that lunacy justice. But Norman "the blood of GIs is better than Viagra" Podhoretz brought up that tired canard of the Delusional Right (italics mine): "Aren't you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?" Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. "No," Podhoretz replies…
...help them win the election. Over at Thoughts from Kansas, ScienceBlogling Josh has a post about who and what are responsible for the current civil war in the West Bank and Gaza. In any discussion of the Middle East, all sorts of things will be claimed, but there is one awful historical fact: American and Israeli pressure on the Palestinian Authority to change their electoral system helped Hamas win the 2006 elections. The original electoral system that Palestinians had was completely proportional. If a party won forty percent of the votes, it received forty percent of the seats in…
I used to think that Democratic politicians were trying to be too clever by half, and consequently screwed things up. Then I started to think that many are actually quite conservative, so they're just reverting to form--most of them don't have a tiny liberal inside of them, struggling to be free. After reading this exchange with a Democratic canvasser (something I used to do), I think the party has been taken over (or at least seriously infiltrated) by fucking morons (italics mine): When I explained my stance and rationale [for not donating to the national party] to the woman on the phone,…
I've said before that when you watch ignoramuses and authoritarians trash your country, anger is the appropriate response. driftglass explains why: The Real Problem is that, in the name of Holy Balance, journalists treat the patently and dangerously delusional adherents of Cult of Dubya as if their opinions were worthy of discussion. Except what Mr. Ites still dogmatically believes in this Year of Our Lord 2007 -- that we are in Iraq because "What they did on 9/11 is a travesty" -- is not a matter of opinion, any more than a fanatical insistence on the flatness of the Earth, the falseness of…
Let's contrast Thomas Friedman with Mark Twain this Memorial Day. Thomas Friedman on the Charlie Rose Show, May 30, 2003: I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.... We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.... What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" You don't think, you know, we care about our…
I ask this seriously. Among rank and file Democrats, there is a common belief that Democratic politicians are being dragged to right by the need for compromise. But I don't think that's the case with Clinton: she is a conservative Southern Democrat without the regional accent. And the southern blue dogs have been pretty weak on the Iraq Occupation. From Matt Stoller (italics mine): There is just no way that she can say that she will end the war and that she will continue a military mission in Iraq to contain extremists and ward off Iran. Those are mutually exclusive. As Matthew…
A story in the NY Times about a very interesting Israeli group, Breaking the Silence (Shovrim Shtika), finally got me motivated to blog about it (I've been meaning to for a while). Here's one bit from the article that was interesting (italics mine): At the recent talk and discussion session, one man stood and said Mr. Manekin and his friends were hurting Israel, especially its image abroad, in order to salve their own consciences. Many in the audience nodded in agreement. Tall and dignified, about 45, the man said that he, too, had served in the West Bank, "and I'm proud of what I did there…
Hear the Mighty Roar of the Peter Pan Conservatives: those conservatives who think that policy failures are not due to strategic, tactical, or logistical flaws but solely due to to a lack of will. It appears that this way of thinking has completely permeated Little Lord Pontchartrain's brain. Neocon Irwin Stelzer had a luncheon meeting with the president. His description is chilling. Stelzer describes four 'lessons' that were discussed. Here's the second lesson: Second lesson: Will trumps wealth. The Romans, the tsars, and other rich world powers fell to poorer ones because they lacked…
A recent Gallup Poll about support for the Iraqi Occupation notes something very interesting: Jews are more likely to oppose the war, even after party affiliation is taken into account. Gallup states, "It is unclear why Jewish Americans show such strong opposition to the war." My answer? Because we're fucking smart. Just kidding. Seriously, here are some reasons why I think Jews disproportionately oppose the war (full disclosure: I'm Jewish): 1) Back in 2001, when Bush referred to our anti-terrorism efforts as a crusade, many noted that Muslims would feel threatened by this language. But…
...the man who helped bring you Iran-Contra, you know you've gone too far. Seymour Hersh has a new article in the New Yorker about the Bush Administration's Middle East 'strategy.' It's more ridiculous than Iran-Contra. Why do I say that? Because we're backing indirectly Sunni groups in Lebanon opposed to Hizbollah that are linked to Al-Queda. Let's replay that last sentence: Because we're backing indirectly Sunni groups in Lebanon opposed to Hizbollah that are linked to Al-Queda. [sound of jaw hitting floor] I swear to the Intelligent Designer, these guys are dumber than Conservapedia.…
What happens if you want to fight a war, and the generals threaten to not show up? From the Sunday Times: SOME of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack. "…
Someone should tell Republican Congresscritter Don Young that if you're going to accuse Democrats of treason and call for their hanging, it would help if your own party does not accept campaign funds from backers of Afghan terrorists. From CBS News: CBS News has confirmed that Alishtari is a donor to the Republican Party, as he claims on his curriculum vitae. Alishtari gave $15,500 to the National Republican Campaign Committee between 2002 and 2004, according to Federal Election Commission records. That amount includes $13,000 in 2003, a year when he claims to have been named NRCC New York…
You would think that the guys who brought you Iran-Contra would, of all people, know that governments and countries often have serious internal divisions. But I'm getting ahead of myself. By now, you may have read about the evidence presented by unidentified "senior defense officials" that Iran is supplying explosive devices to the Iraqi insurgents (the Shiite ones, anyway). The evidence is so poorly cooked that the senior military official in Iraq, General Pace, isn't buying it. Perhaps it might have something to do with the ordinance probably being Pakistanti in origin and lacking any…
The frustration of the soldiers in Afghanistan must have just 'surged'. Why? Because, as part of the Bush-McCain surge, soldiers in Afghanistan will be withdrawn and sent to Iraq just in time for a Taliban offensive: A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq. Army Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata and other US commanders say that will happen as the Taliban is expected to unleash a campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's…
By way of Litbrit at Shakespeare's Sister, I came across a Greg Palast article about possible motivations for a troop increase in Iraq. Palast writes (bold in original; italics mine): Here's my question: Who asked the waiter to deliver this dish? Who asked for the 21,000 soldiers? We know the US military didn't ask for the 21,000 troops. (Outgoing commander General George Casey called for a troop reduction.) We know the Iraqi government didn't ask for the 21,000 troops. (Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is reportedly unhappy about a visible increase in foreign occupiers). So who wants the…
Right-wing dorkball* Michael Ledeen has discovered why Iraq has not gone exactly as planned: Note that an increase in embeds doesn't necessarily require an increase in overall troop strength. We've got lots of soldiers sitting on megabases all over Iraq. They should be out and about, some of them embedded, others just moving around, tracking the terrorists, hunting them down. I don't know how many guys and gals are sitting in air-conditioned quarters and drinking designer coffee, but it's a substantial number. Enough of that. It was the "designer coffee." Not a complete failure of strategy,…
So Michael Fumento has issued a challenge to put 'odds' on avian influenza, thinking that somehow I've stated that an avian influenza pandemic is likely (he's also accused me, a scientist, of being "anti-scientist" and "alarmist"). Well, I'm not putting odds down because I've never said that a pandemic is likely. Then again, one should hardly be surprised when a professional conservative completely distorts what one says. In fact, in the post, I wrote: We can argue about public health priorities (avian flu isn't my top priority personally). One would think that was clear, but I made the…
Because said officials are even more ignorant than the Pundits of the Potomac. A few months ago, Jeff Stein published an op-ed about the many officials who are charged with anti-terrorism and who also know nothing about the Middle East--to the point where they don't know if Hezbollah is Sunni or Shiite. Stein has followed up with an interview with incoming House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes. As far as I can tell, Reyes is marginally more informed than his Republican predecessors, which is damning with faint praise. Shakes and Ezra Klein both pile on Reyes, so I won't do that here…
Newsweek columnist Christopher Dickey writes this about our new Iraqi Phalangist friend, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (italics mine): As a Hakim supporter in the government told me privately the other day, "Moqtada should be behind bars, underground or across the border--those are the three options he has--and a fourth one is for him to behave. The U.S. doesn't need to tackle him. They don't need to do the dirty work. We will do the dirty work. They should stay over the horizon.". . . The essential point is that Iraqis on all…