Everyone claims to be surprised by Hamas’ victory in Palestine. What happened? One thing is that Yasser Arafat is gone from the scene. If Yasser Arafat had still been around he may well have been able to orchestrate the politics to produce a Fatah victory. Arafat was a cagy political operator, both on the international and domestic stages. The Israelis couldn’t wait to get rid of Arafat, but it may be another case of be careful what you wish for. Is Israel going to be happier with the Palestinians under the rule of Hamas rather than Arafat?
All indications are that Mahmoud Abbas was selected by the US and Israel to succeed Arafat, because he was a moderate who allowed himself to be influenced by Washington and Tel Aviv (or Jerusalem). But that was certainly part of Fatah's problem; Abbas' appeal to the US and Israel was anathema to Palestinians. So now, what will his relationship be with Hamas? Nobody seems to know. It seems likely that things will get worse before they get better, in part at least because of Sharon’s departure from the scene, in part because of the way Washington and Israel have played their hands. The Europeans, who have been more balanced between Israel and the Palestinians, may be able to play a more constructive role now that American Middle Eastern policy has failed.
Israel, of course, is one of the main problems in dealing with the Iranian nuclear problem. Israel's nuclear arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons is a driving force behind Iran's (and earlier, Pakistan's) desire for its own nukes. If things continue to deteriorate, maybe Israel will finally get to use some of them. The good news is that Israel will not use its nukes without strong provocation, because it sees them as the ace in the hole to protect the entire Jewish race if it is ever again threatened by something like the Holocaust. The question is: how closely does Israel see its future linked to the future of the entire Jewish race?
Friday, January 27, 2006
Friday, December 30, 2005
Letter to Congressmen and Senators
I have not written to you for some time. As the year comes to an end, I am writing to tell you some of my concerns, lest you think everything is okay with this constituent.
My main concerns are:
1. Torture carried out by the US Government,
2. Poor progress of the Iraq War,
3. US failure to honor the rule of law,
4. Government corruption,
5. Immigration mess, and
6. Failure to follow up Hurricane Katrina.
Torture. There seems to be little doubt from reliable press reports that the US has used torture in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I express my concerns about torture as a Vietnam veteran who served in the Army artillery on the DMZ, an attorney who is a member of the Alabama bar, and a retired Foreign Service officer who spent over 20 years with the U.S. Department of State. In Vietnam, one of our worries was that we would be captured by the “barbaric” North Vietnamese or Viet Cong and tortured. If you are properly trained as a soldier to hate the enemy, there is always the temptation to torture or mistreat a prisoner you take, but on the other hand, if you are properly trained, you will resist this temptation and uphold what used to be the high standards of the West in general and the United States in particular. As a junior Foreign Service officer, one of my jobs was to look after Americans who were arrested in Brazil, where prisoners were often mistreated. It was my impression (based on an unscientific sampling of what I saw and heard) that those who carried out this mistreatment, which often fell short of real “torture,” were not normal people. They were often sexual deviates, among other things, who delighted in the pain of others. I cannot understand why the US has not reacted in horror at torture by Americans, whether military or CIA. Incidentally, as a Foreign Service officer, I worked regularly with CIA officers, including from the operations side in Washington and overseas, and I do not think they would use torture. I think the CIA people who used torture were probably some kind of paramilitary types, who are a small minority of all CIA employees. The press reports that the Bush Administration, particularly Vice President Cheney, supports the use of torture. I hope that the Congress will assert its authority and force the Government — the military, the CIA, and anybody else — to stop using torture against anyone in US custody. We should also stop “rendition” of prisoners to other countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe, where they may be tortured by the foreign police or military. Prisoners captured by the US should be treated humanely, no matter what the circumstances were under which they were captured. We cannot let Saddam Hussein be the model for our democracy.
Iraq War. I am very concerned that the Iraq War will end up creating more serious problems in the Middle East than it solves. Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but now it has become a breeding ground for terrorists. It may degenerate into civil war, with the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds fighting one another. Iraq could become a giant, black hole of violence that will roil the Middle East for decades to come. Outside of the usual suspects, the Kurds are seen as a threat by Turkey, because of their desire for a greater Kurdistan, which would include part of Turkey, as well as part of Iraq. Although Turkey is a relatively moderate Muslim state, the disintegration of Iraq may radicalize Turkey and draw it into the already volatile mix. Furthermore, the US occupation of Iraq has made the US a focal point of Arab and Muslim hatred. Finally, I am concerned that the main beneficiary of our war there will be Iran, because we have facilitated the ascendancy of the Shiites in Iraq, who have a natural alliance with Iran, which is the only other predominately Shiite country in the world. Iran, of course, is working on an atomic bomb, which we are powerless to stop, because we destroyed our credibility on non-proliferation by being dead wrong about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, and because we are so tied down in Iraq, we have no remaining forces even to make a credible military threat against Iran (not to mention North Korea). In addition, I am disappointed that the Iraq War prevented us from killing or capturing Osama bin Laden, who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. I am concerned that we entered the ill-advised Iraq War because of pressure from Jews, who may have been more concerned about the welfare of Israel than about the US. Many of the neo-conservatives who argued for the war were Jews — Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and William Kristol, just to name a few. In light of the Abramoff and AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee) scandals, I am concerned that American politicians are sending Christian soldiers to die in Iraq in return for Jewish money. In the old days, Jews were mostly Democrats, but both of these scandals involve Jews who were trying to influence this Republican Administration and Republicans in Congress (and succeeding). I realize that this is a politically incorrect accusation, but one of the concerns underlying all of the issues I raise in this letter is the American abandonment of the New Testament of the Bible. The Old (Jewish) Testament said “an eye for an eye,” (torture?), but the New (Christian) Testament said, “Love your enemies.” Christians should certainly be tolerant of Jews, but Christians should also live up to their own moral standards. By waging what is a particularly Jewish war in Iraq, we are losing sight of those standards. I have not seen the new Spielberg movie, “Munich,” but I am concerned that it is propaganda supporting the Old Testament, Jewish response to terrorism. I am also disappointed that the US Government does not trust its American troops in Iraq. Most senior officials are protected by private contractors, such as Blackwater or Triple Canopy, not by soldiers or marines. More and more the war is being fought by these private contractors, who may earn ten times what their counterparts in the military make. Many are not Americans. Giving so much money and prestige to these non-military fighters dishonors the troops who are fighting for our country and flag, not just for money.
Rule of Law. US failure to adhere to the rule of law is related to the torture issue, but much broader. For me it began with the US abrogation of the Kyoto Treaty and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I was particularly upset by the American failure to adhere to the Vienna Convention, which deals with consular access to prisoners arrested in a foreign country, because as a vice consul, I personally used the Vienna Convention to protect Americans arrested in Brazil. As a veteran, I was also dismayed by the US failure to adhere to the Geneva Convention. We will have no basis to protest if American soldiers are captured and tortured by their enemies. (According to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler “considered denouncing the Geneva Convention in order… ‘to make the enemy realize that we are determined to fight for our existence with all the means at our disposal.’ …When some of the officers present raised legal objections Hitler retorted angrily: ‘To hell with that!’” (Page 1100). Hitler apparently did not follow through on his threat.) I thought early in the Bush Administration that these actions indicated only contempt for international law, but as time has passed, the Bush Administration has shown contempt for domestic law as well, up to and including the Constitution and the judicial branch of government in general. If the Bush Administration had been interested in law, it would have negotiated some kind of exit from Kyoto and the ABM Treaty, but it just said, like Hitler, “To hell with that.” Now we find that the Administration created a prison in Cuba to try to escape American law, that it engages in “extraordinary rendition” to evade American legal protection for prisoners, and that it even does weird things with prisoners arrested in the US. The US courts have slapped the Administration’s hand for its handling of Jose Padilla. It remains to be seen what action the Supreme Court will take, if any. Recently revelations about National Security Agency spying on private American citizens have been published. The Administration’s denial of habeas corpus (a right granted in the Constitution, Article I, section 9) for Padilla and possibly others, and its violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by wiretapping without a court warrant are certainly serious concerns to law-abiding Americans. It may warrant impeachment proceedings. An editorial in the financial newspaper Barron’s for December 26 stated, “Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later.”
Corruption. Jack Abramoff, Congressman Tom DeLay, Congressman Duke Cunningham, White House aide David Safavian, Congressman Bob Ney, and the list of possibly corrupt politicians and lobbyists goes on. AIPAC, which is supposed to be a lobby for Israel, was found to be spying against the US for Israel. Outside government, we find a number of CEO’s in trouble with the law, from Joe Nacchio of Qwest here in Colorado, to Ken Lay of Enron, and even to business icon Jack Welch, who according to the December 26 issue of Barron’s, cooked the books at GE to the tune of about $6 billion to make his reign as CEO look better. I believe that this is only the tip of the iceberg, mainly those who got caught because they were too greedy. I am particularly outraged at Halliburton and Vice President Cheney, who personally benefits financially from Halliburton’s profits, for their war profiteering in Iraq. Halliburton has not performed well, but has raked in millions, perhaps billions, from unsupervised contracts with the US government. Others, who were perhaps a little less greedy, have stayed below the radar and gotten away with billions. I was particularly irked that the US Chamber of Commerce came out in favor of illegal immigration, no doubt because their constituents, the major businesses of America, benefit from this illegal traffic. I think it is odd that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has not gotten more criticism for employing an illegal alien, working for him at the Cherry Cricket restaurant in Denver, who killed an off-duty cop. Apparently businessmen think that violating laws regarding immigration is not really breaking the law. I think it is. If you don’t like the law, change it, don’t violate it.
Immigration. As I noted above in connection with corruption, immigration is a big mess. I think this country needs a policy and needs to adhere to it. I don’t favor amnesty. If we want to have a guest worker program, it should start prospectively. We should not reward people who have come to the US illegally for committing an illegal act. This is one point on which I disagree with Senator John McCain, whom I respect for standing up on many other issues that agree with him on, from torture to funding political campaigns. More generally, I don’t believe that the Department of Homeland Security is up to any of its jobs. It failed in New Orleans after Katrina; it’s failing to control immigration, and it would certainly fail to protect the homeland from another attack. Somebody needs to do something to whip the Department into shape, although I think it is probably impossible. It’s too big; its various activities — from the Coast Guard to the Secret Service, from border patrol to FEMA — are too diverse to produce any synergy.
Katrina. The failure to help New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast after Katrina epitomizes many of the failures listed above. On the Jewish issue, many families in New York who suffered losses in 9/11 received millions of dollars from the federal government. Osama bin Laden probably attacked the World Trade Center because the New York financial district contains one of the highest concentrations of Jews of any place in the world outside of Israel. A number of Jews working in the financial district were killed, and their families and politically connected friends demanded huge sums in reparations. They got it through their enormous power on Capitol Hill. Payments to New Yorkers from the reparations fund run by Kenneth Feinberg came to about $7 billion, separate from money for reconstruction. If New Orleans had had as many Jewish residents as New York City, it would have been buried in federal money before the rain stopped falling. In addition on the corruption side, then-Senator Tom Daschle’s wife was a lobbyist for American Airlines, one of the companies that could have been sued by victims of the 9/11 attacks. Thus, he shepherded the bill through Congress which made the federal government responsible for paying victims, rather than American Airlines or its insurers. The residents of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are just plain old Americans, and the federal government could care less about them. They were treated like the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, who were also just ordinary citizens, like me.
It looks like the government only does what lobbyists and campaign donors pay it to do. I hope that you will consider changing that.
My main concerns are:
1. Torture carried out by the US Government,
2. Poor progress of the Iraq War,
3. US failure to honor the rule of law,
4. Government corruption,
5. Immigration mess, and
6. Failure to follow up Hurricane Katrina.
Torture. There seems to be little doubt from reliable press reports that the US has used torture in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I express my concerns about torture as a Vietnam veteran who served in the Army artillery on the DMZ, an attorney who is a member of the Alabama bar, and a retired Foreign Service officer who spent over 20 years with the U.S. Department of State. In Vietnam, one of our worries was that we would be captured by the “barbaric” North Vietnamese or Viet Cong and tortured. If you are properly trained as a soldier to hate the enemy, there is always the temptation to torture or mistreat a prisoner you take, but on the other hand, if you are properly trained, you will resist this temptation and uphold what used to be the high standards of the West in general and the United States in particular. As a junior Foreign Service officer, one of my jobs was to look after Americans who were arrested in Brazil, where prisoners were often mistreated. It was my impression (based on an unscientific sampling of what I saw and heard) that those who carried out this mistreatment, which often fell short of real “torture,” were not normal people. They were often sexual deviates, among other things, who delighted in the pain of others. I cannot understand why the US has not reacted in horror at torture by Americans, whether military or CIA. Incidentally, as a Foreign Service officer, I worked regularly with CIA officers, including from the operations side in Washington and overseas, and I do not think they would use torture. I think the CIA people who used torture were probably some kind of paramilitary types, who are a small minority of all CIA employees. The press reports that the Bush Administration, particularly Vice President Cheney, supports the use of torture. I hope that the Congress will assert its authority and force the Government — the military, the CIA, and anybody else — to stop using torture against anyone in US custody. We should also stop “rendition” of prisoners to other countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe, where they may be tortured by the foreign police or military. Prisoners captured by the US should be treated humanely, no matter what the circumstances were under which they were captured. We cannot let Saddam Hussein be the model for our democracy.
Iraq War. I am very concerned that the Iraq War will end up creating more serious problems in the Middle East than it solves. Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but now it has become a breeding ground for terrorists. It may degenerate into civil war, with the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds fighting one another. Iraq could become a giant, black hole of violence that will roil the Middle East for decades to come. Outside of the usual suspects, the Kurds are seen as a threat by Turkey, because of their desire for a greater Kurdistan, which would include part of Turkey, as well as part of Iraq. Although Turkey is a relatively moderate Muslim state, the disintegration of Iraq may radicalize Turkey and draw it into the already volatile mix. Furthermore, the US occupation of Iraq has made the US a focal point of Arab and Muslim hatred. Finally, I am concerned that the main beneficiary of our war there will be Iran, because we have facilitated the ascendancy of the Shiites in Iraq, who have a natural alliance with Iran, which is the only other predominately Shiite country in the world. Iran, of course, is working on an atomic bomb, which we are powerless to stop, because we destroyed our credibility on non-proliferation by being dead wrong about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, and because we are so tied down in Iraq, we have no remaining forces even to make a credible military threat against Iran (not to mention North Korea). In addition, I am disappointed that the Iraq War prevented us from killing or capturing Osama bin Laden, who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. I am concerned that we entered the ill-advised Iraq War because of pressure from Jews, who may have been more concerned about the welfare of Israel than about the US. Many of the neo-conservatives who argued for the war were Jews — Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and William Kristol, just to name a few. In light of the Abramoff and AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee) scandals, I am concerned that American politicians are sending Christian soldiers to die in Iraq in return for Jewish money. In the old days, Jews were mostly Democrats, but both of these scandals involve Jews who were trying to influence this Republican Administration and Republicans in Congress (and succeeding). I realize that this is a politically incorrect accusation, but one of the concerns underlying all of the issues I raise in this letter is the American abandonment of the New Testament of the Bible. The Old (Jewish) Testament said “an eye for an eye,” (torture?), but the New (Christian) Testament said, “Love your enemies.” Christians should certainly be tolerant of Jews, but Christians should also live up to their own moral standards. By waging what is a particularly Jewish war in Iraq, we are losing sight of those standards. I have not seen the new Spielberg movie, “Munich,” but I am concerned that it is propaganda supporting the Old Testament, Jewish response to terrorism. I am also disappointed that the US Government does not trust its American troops in Iraq. Most senior officials are protected by private contractors, such as Blackwater or Triple Canopy, not by soldiers or marines. More and more the war is being fought by these private contractors, who may earn ten times what their counterparts in the military make. Many are not Americans. Giving so much money and prestige to these non-military fighters dishonors the troops who are fighting for our country and flag, not just for money.
Rule of Law. US failure to adhere to the rule of law is related to the torture issue, but much broader. For me it began with the US abrogation of the Kyoto Treaty and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I was particularly upset by the American failure to adhere to the Vienna Convention, which deals with consular access to prisoners arrested in a foreign country, because as a vice consul, I personally used the Vienna Convention to protect Americans arrested in Brazil. As a veteran, I was also dismayed by the US failure to adhere to the Geneva Convention. We will have no basis to protest if American soldiers are captured and tortured by their enemies. (According to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler “considered denouncing the Geneva Convention in order… ‘to make the enemy realize that we are determined to fight for our existence with all the means at our disposal.’ …When some of the officers present raised legal objections Hitler retorted angrily: ‘To hell with that!’” (Page 1100). Hitler apparently did not follow through on his threat.) I thought early in the Bush Administration that these actions indicated only contempt for international law, but as time has passed, the Bush Administration has shown contempt for domestic law as well, up to and including the Constitution and the judicial branch of government in general. If the Bush Administration had been interested in law, it would have negotiated some kind of exit from Kyoto and the ABM Treaty, but it just said, like Hitler, “To hell with that.” Now we find that the Administration created a prison in Cuba to try to escape American law, that it engages in “extraordinary rendition” to evade American legal protection for prisoners, and that it even does weird things with prisoners arrested in the US. The US courts have slapped the Administration’s hand for its handling of Jose Padilla. It remains to be seen what action the Supreme Court will take, if any. Recently revelations about National Security Agency spying on private American citizens have been published. The Administration’s denial of habeas corpus (a right granted in the Constitution, Article I, section 9) for Padilla and possibly others, and its violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by wiretapping without a court warrant are certainly serious concerns to law-abiding Americans. It may warrant impeachment proceedings. An editorial in the financial newspaper Barron’s for December 26 stated, “Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later.”
Corruption. Jack Abramoff, Congressman Tom DeLay, Congressman Duke Cunningham, White House aide David Safavian, Congressman Bob Ney, and the list of possibly corrupt politicians and lobbyists goes on. AIPAC, which is supposed to be a lobby for Israel, was found to be spying against the US for Israel. Outside government, we find a number of CEO’s in trouble with the law, from Joe Nacchio of Qwest here in Colorado, to Ken Lay of Enron, and even to business icon Jack Welch, who according to the December 26 issue of Barron’s, cooked the books at GE to the tune of about $6 billion to make his reign as CEO look better. I believe that this is only the tip of the iceberg, mainly those who got caught because they were too greedy. I am particularly outraged at Halliburton and Vice President Cheney, who personally benefits financially from Halliburton’s profits, for their war profiteering in Iraq. Halliburton has not performed well, but has raked in millions, perhaps billions, from unsupervised contracts with the US government. Others, who were perhaps a little less greedy, have stayed below the radar and gotten away with billions. I was particularly irked that the US Chamber of Commerce came out in favor of illegal immigration, no doubt because their constituents, the major businesses of America, benefit from this illegal traffic. I think it is odd that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has not gotten more criticism for employing an illegal alien, working for him at the Cherry Cricket restaurant in Denver, who killed an off-duty cop. Apparently businessmen think that violating laws regarding immigration is not really breaking the law. I think it is. If you don’t like the law, change it, don’t violate it.
Immigration. As I noted above in connection with corruption, immigration is a big mess. I think this country needs a policy and needs to adhere to it. I don’t favor amnesty. If we want to have a guest worker program, it should start prospectively. We should not reward people who have come to the US illegally for committing an illegal act. This is one point on which I disagree with Senator John McCain, whom I respect for standing up on many other issues that agree with him on, from torture to funding political campaigns. More generally, I don’t believe that the Department of Homeland Security is up to any of its jobs. It failed in New Orleans after Katrina; it’s failing to control immigration, and it would certainly fail to protect the homeland from another attack. Somebody needs to do something to whip the Department into shape, although I think it is probably impossible. It’s too big; its various activities — from the Coast Guard to the Secret Service, from border patrol to FEMA — are too diverse to produce any synergy.
Katrina. The failure to help New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast after Katrina epitomizes many of the failures listed above. On the Jewish issue, many families in New York who suffered losses in 9/11 received millions of dollars from the federal government. Osama bin Laden probably attacked the World Trade Center because the New York financial district contains one of the highest concentrations of Jews of any place in the world outside of Israel. A number of Jews working in the financial district were killed, and their families and politically connected friends demanded huge sums in reparations. They got it through their enormous power on Capitol Hill. Payments to New Yorkers from the reparations fund run by Kenneth Feinberg came to about $7 billion, separate from money for reconstruction. If New Orleans had had as many Jewish residents as New York City, it would have been buried in federal money before the rain stopped falling. In addition on the corruption side, then-Senator Tom Daschle’s wife was a lobbyist for American Airlines, one of the companies that could have been sued by victims of the 9/11 attacks. Thus, he shepherded the bill through Congress which made the federal government responsible for paying victims, rather than American Airlines or its insurers. The residents of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are just plain old Americans, and the federal government could care less about them. They were treated like the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, who were also just ordinary citizens, like me.
It looks like the government only does what lobbyists and campaign donors pay it to do. I hope that you will consider changing that.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Why is Jordan's Government Better Than America's
Reuters reports that several Jordanian officials including Jordan's national security adviser (Condi Rice's counterpart) resigned over the three hotel bombings there. Fifty some odd people were killed in Jordan, versus about 3,000 in 9/11. Why did no American take responsibility for failure in 9/11. In retrospect, it has become clear that George Tenet pretty much destroyed the CIA while he was director. The CIA is now a broken shell of its old (pre-9/11, pre-Iraq War) self. What a failure of leadership! First, Tenet's failure. Then George Bush's failure for not firing him right after 9/11. Did Bush offer to let him stay on if Tenet promised to provide the intelligence support for a war in Iraq? They're all worthless liars; I wouldn't put it past them. Poor America!
Condi Rice, of course, was in charge of national security, but took no responsibility, nor did Don Rumsfeld, who could have sent some Air Force fighters to take out the airliners before they hit the WTC and the Pentagon, thus saving thousands of lives, if he had been doing his job.
Jordan's King Abdullah makes Bush, who hid in Louisiana or Nebraska after the 9/11 attacks, look like a helpless crybaby. And his young, beautiful Queen Rania makes Laura look like an inarticulate, fuddy-duddy old housewife. But of course Laura, who seems to be an honest, intelligent, decent woman, comes off much better in comparison to Queen Rania than stupid, old, dishonest George does in comparison to Abdullah.
Condi Rice, of course, was in charge of national security, but took no responsibility, nor did Don Rumsfeld, who could have sent some Air Force fighters to take out the airliners before they hit the WTC and the Pentagon, thus saving thousands of lives, if he had been doing his job.
Jordan's King Abdullah makes Bush, who hid in Louisiana or Nebraska after the 9/11 attacks, look like a helpless crybaby. And his young, beautiful Queen Rania makes Laura look like an inarticulate, fuddy-duddy old housewife. But of course Laura, who seems to be an honest, intelligent, decent woman, comes off much better in comparison to Queen Rania than stupid, old, dishonest George does in comparison to Abdullah.
Problem with Iraq War Was 9/11
Bush's attempt to save his reputation by saying that most Democrats agreed with his decision to go to war is misguided. It's true that many Democrats voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq, but they did so because the 9/11 attacks were still fresh in everyone's mind. The Republicans cynically linked Iraq to 9/11, partly by timing and partly by public arguments, implying a link, made by Bush, Cheney and company. Democrats knew that if they voted against taking out Saddam that they would be seen as insensitive to the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Egged on by the neo-cons, the Bushies struck while 9/11 was still hot, still in everyone's consciousness.
To me, all the debate about the intelligence is largely irrelevant. I'm glad the Democrats are finally doing something. But the issue is not the intelligence. The issue is using 9/11 to go to war with a country that had little or nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons wanted to get Saddam. Cheney has probably wanted to get Saddam ever since he was Secretary of Defense during the first Iraq war, when Bush I stopped him from marching to Baghdad and taking out Saddam. We now see how smart Bush I was compared with Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and company. Bush I was a patriot. Bush II and his cronies are just sucking money out of the US Government as fast as they can. In gratitude for his largess with the people's money, Bush II's rich friends will no doubt look after him financially for the rest of his life. It's ironic that the Republicans argue to reduce taxes "because it's your money," but when they get it, they don't treat it as yours; they give it to their rich friends, who pay proportionately little in taxes.
To me, all the debate about the intelligence is largely irrelevant. I'm glad the Democrats are finally doing something. But the issue is not the intelligence. The issue is using 9/11 to go to war with a country that had little or nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons wanted to get Saddam. Cheney has probably wanted to get Saddam ever since he was Secretary of Defense during the first Iraq war, when Bush I stopped him from marching to Baghdad and taking out Saddam. We now see how smart Bush I was compared with Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and company. Bush I was a patriot. Bush II and his cronies are just sucking money out of the US Government as fast as they can. In gratitude for his largess with the people's money, Bush II's rich friends will no doubt look after him financially for the rest of his life. It's ironic that the Republicans argue to reduce taxes "because it's your money," but when they get it, they don't treat it as yours; they give it to their rich friends, who pay proportionately little in taxes.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Torture Debases the US
The continuing reports that the US is mistreating prisoners undermines what the United States should be standing for. The most recent report in the Washington Post that the CIA has secret detention centers in Eastern Europe and other places adds a particularly distasteful piece to the puzzle. This administration's disregard for the US Constitution is disgraceful, and is a bad omen for the future of this country. We already know of its contempt for international law. Contempt for international law is bad, but contempt for the US Constitution is worse. Perhaps this contempt was illustrated by Bush's attempt to name Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. She wasn't a bad person, but she knew nothing about the Constitution, and Bush didn't care that she didn't.
However, you don't need the Constitution to know that torture is wrong. Torture is an affront to human decency. We have advanced as a civilization from the days when the church tortured "infidels" in the Inquisition, in the name of Christ, etc. Now we seem to be back there again. Is it an accident that Bush's two appointees to the Supreme Court have been Catholics, the church that ran the Inquisition?
My opinion is that Bush and Cheney, and all the politicians who fail to speak out against torture are failed human beings. They are trash -- black and white (Rice and Bush). They are vile, filthy, inhuman scum. They make me ashamed to be an American. How can so-called "Christians" support them? I expect Colorado Springs to be swallowed up by fire and brimstone any minute.
It's not that these impulses to torture are unusual. Today we have many child molesters, and various, other types of perverts in our society, but we try to keep them under control. In World War II, we had the German Holocaust, the Japanese Bataan death march, and the Japanese atrocities committed in China. We had My Lai in Vietnam. In any war troops who are encouraged to kill the enemy will develop a hatred for the enemy that will lead to atrocities, if not controlled by better men at higher levels. There are always atrocities committed in wars. But that's why we have the Geneva Convention, and the other international laws to prevent torture and other atrocities. Men agree on them in more peaceful times when heads are cooler, and then should adhere to them when passions are hot. But Bush and company rejected them after 9/11. Bush used Saddam Hussein has his role model.
This is awful. Cooler headed, more moral leaders of our society need to rise up against Bush and Cheney and make them change their policies on torture. John McCain and Jimmy Carter have recently done so. More power to them!
Where is the so-called "Christian right" when there is a truly Christian issue to be handled? They are missing in action, demonstrating how little they understand the Bible. A pox on their houses!
However, you don't need the Constitution to know that torture is wrong. Torture is an affront to human decency. We have advanced as a civilization from the days when the church tortured "infidels" in the Inquisition, in the name of Christ, etc. Now we seem to be back there again. Is it an accident that Bush's two appointees to the Supreme Court have been Catholics, the church that ran the Inquisition?
My opinion is that Bush and Cheney, and all the politicians who fail to speak out against torture are failed human beings. They are trash -- black and white (Rice and Bush). They are vile, filthy, inhuman scum. They make me ashamed to be an American. How can so-called "Christians" support them? I expect Colorado Springs to be swallowed up by fire and brimstone any minute.
It's not that these impulses to torture are unusual. Today we have many child molesters, and various, other types of perverts in our society, but we try to keep them under control. In World War II, we had the German Holocaust, the Japanese Bataan death march, and the Japanese atrocities committed in China. We had My Lai in Vietnam. In any war troops who are encouraged to kill the enemy will develop a hatred for the enemy that will lead to atrocities, if not controlled by better men at higher levels. There are always atrocities committed in wars. But that's why we have the Geneva Convention, and the other international laws to prevent torture and other atrocities. Men agree on them in more peaceful times when heads are cooler, and then should adhere to them when passions are hot. But Bush and company rejected them after 9/11. Bush used Saddam Hussein has his role model.
This is awful. Cooler headed, more moral leaders of our society need to rise up against Bush and Cheney and make them change their policies on torture. John McCain and Jimmy Carter have recently done so. More power to them!
Where is the so-called "Christian right" when there is a truly Christian issue to be handled? They are missing in action, demonstrating how little they understand the Bible. A pox on their houses!
Monday, October 31, 2005
Did Libby/Cheney Hate the CIA or Joe Wilson More?
Did Scooter Libby get himself indicted because he hated Joe Wilson so much? I don't think so. It's more likely that Libby hated the CIA that much, and that he saw Joe Wilson as the CIA's representative or front man in a battle between the CIA and the White House. I first heard this idea from Mort Zuckerman on the McLaughlin Group, and then found it in an op-ed by David Ignatius in the Washington Post.
Although Joe Wilson was an ambassador to an African country, he was not one of the top tier of career Foreign Service officers. He was more or less equivalent to a midlevel general in the military, most of whom are never heard from again after they retire. He seems to have some political connections, but again, not of the highest level. He did not have the personal clout to threaten the White House. He wrote an op-ed attacking the White House's WMD justification for the Iraq War, but a lot of other people -- academics, think tank staffers, other retired government officials -- wrote articles attacking various aspects of the Iraq War, presumably without attracting the vicious attacks from Libby, Rove and Cheney that Wilson did.
Therefore, it makes sense to me that the White House saw the CIA as undercutting the White House rationale for the war and thus as a major bureaucratic enemy in Washington. When the White House staff found out that Wilson was married to a CIA agent, they assumed the worst: that he had been put up to his attack on the White House by the CIA. Thus, as a representative of the CIA he came under the kind of attack usually reserved for major Washington players, which he personally was not.
Although Joe Wilson was an ambassador to an African country, he was not one of the top tier of career Foreign Service officers. He was more or less equivalent to a midlevel general in the military, most of whom are never heard from again after they retire. He seems to have some political connections, but again, not of the highest level. He did not have the personal clout to threaten the White House. He wrote an op-ed attacking the White House's WMD justification for the Iraq War, but a lot of other people -- academics, think tank staffers, other retired government officials -- wrote articles attacking various aspects of the Iraq War, presumably without attracting the vicious attacks from Libby, Rove and Cheney that Wilson did.
Therefore, it makes sense to me that the White House saw the CIA as undercutting the White House rationale for the war and thus as a major bureaucratic enemy in Washington. When the White House staff found out that Wilson was married to a CIA agent, they assumed the worst: that he had been put up to his attack on the White House by the CIA. Thus, as a representative of the CIA he came under the kind of attack usually reserved for major Washington players, which he personally was not.
Friday, October 07, 2005
IAEA Nobel a Slap at Bush
The Nobel committee's decision of award the Nobel Peace Prize to the IAEA and ElBaradei, as reported by CNN and many others, is a slap at Bush for his decision to settle everything by war rather than diplomacy. Before the Iraq war, Bush ignored and ridiculed the IAEA along with the other UN inspection efforts in Iraq led by Hans Blix, the former head of the IAEA. The UN was right about weapons of mass destruction, and Bush was wrong. Then Secretary of State Powell ruined his reputation by arguing Bush's case in the UN. Most of Powell's arguments were wrong. I think he was just mistaken or misled by the CIA, but clearly he intended to support Bush's case, although the case had no basis in fact.
So, hooray for the Nobel Committee and for the IAEA! Truth will out. The UN is on the side of the angels. The Bush administration and all its evangelical supporters are on the other side. It's pretty clear when you see where this administration stands on torture at Guantanamo and in Iraq. This administration and its supporters stand for evil, illustrated currently by their opposition to Sen. McCain's bill. Clearly the 9/11 terrorists were more evil, but apparently Bush decided that you have to fight evil with evil. I don't think that was the way to go.
So, hooray for the Nobel Committee and for the IAEA! Truth will out. The UN is on the side of the angels. The Bush administration and all its evangelical supporters are on the other side. It's pretty clear when you see where this administration stands on torture at Guantanamo and in Iraq. This administration and its supporters stand for evil, illustrated currently by their opposition to Sen. McCain's bill. Clearly the 9/11 terrorists were more evil, but apparently Bush decided that you have to fight evil with evil. I don't think that was the way to go.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
North Korea Nuclear Agreement Redux
The much touted nuclear agreement with North Korea is very similar to the one that the Clinton Administration reached about ten years ago. The issue that caused the US to break off the earlier agreement, uranium enrichment, is not mentioned explicitly in the new agreement, but according to the US is captured because the new agreement refers to all North Korean nuclear activities.
What appears to have happened is that sometime after the Clinton agreement and the tantrum by the Bush administration, Pakistan's A.Q. Khan dropped by North Korea and offered to sell them uranium enrichment technology, because he wanted a little (or a lot of) extra money. The North Koreans thought this was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and jumped at it. It turned out to be somewhat of a once in a lifetime opportunity, because once the US learned what Khan was up to, they got Pakistan to rein him in, although they closed the barn door after the horse had escaped.
When the Bush administration learned that North Korea had gotten access to enrichment technology they threw a hissy fit, which is not very helpful in diplomacy. They managed to:
-- cancel the agreement, which provided some restraint on North Korea's activities,
--provoke North Korea to withdraw from the NPT, and
--get the IAEA inspectors thrown out.
All of which left us less secure and more in the dark about what the DPRK was doing.
Now we have a proposal, in principle, to get us more or less back where we were several years ago. At least this administration has more or less come to its senses. The DPRK probably never will, but it's better to have one of the parties at the table to be sane. Probably a lot of the progress on the US side been made possible by getting John Bolton out of the State Department, where he managed to sabotage any similar attempt by Colin Powell. Also, I tend to believe the reports that the Chinese threatened to embarrass Bush and blame the US publicly for the failure of the negotiations if we didn't sign on.
What appears to have happened is that sometime after the Clinton agreement and the tantrum by the Bush administration, Pakistan's A.Q. Khan dropped by North Korea and offered to sell them uranium enrichment technology, because he wanted a little (or a lot of) extra money. The North Koreans thought this was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and jumped at it. It turned out to be somewhat of a once in a lifetime opportunity, because once the US learned what Khan was up to, they got Pakistan to rein him in, although they closed the barn door after the horse had escaped.
When the Bush administration learned that North Korea had gotten access to enrichment technology they threw a hissy fit, which is not very helpful in diplomacy. They managed to:
-- cancel the agreement, which provided some restraint on North Korea's activities,
--provoke North Korea to withdraw from the NPT, and
--get the IAEA inspectors thrown out.
All of which left us less secure and more in the dark about what the DPRK was doing.
Now we have a proposal, in principle, to get us more or less back where we were several years ago. At least this administration has more or less come to its senses. The DPRK probably never will, but it's better to have one of the parties at the table to be sane. Probably a lot of the progress on the US side been made possible by getting John Bolton out of the State Department, where he managed to sabotage any similar attempt by Colin Powell. Also, I tend to believe the reports that the Chinese threatened to embarrass Bush and blame the US publicly for the failure of the negotiations if we didn't sign on.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Another Encounter with Richard Perle
I began working on Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) issues while I was in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), about the same time I began working on Soviet high technology issues. There was no non-proliferation regime for controlling delivery systems of weapons of mass destruction, and Reagan decided to follow up on Carter's first steps towards developing one.
One of the first things we needed was a list of items to be controlled by a missile control regime, and one of the State Department experts on controlling high technology was Bill Root, who was the director of the office in the Economic Bureau that handled COCOM issues, the Coordinating Committee that allowed Western countries to coordinate their exports of high technology items to the Soviet Union. Root's assistant, the deputy director, was Vic Comras. Richard Perle took a strong interest in COCOM issues from his Pentagon roost. He and his staff frequently fought with Root and his staff on COCOM issues, just as he and his staff fought with me and my associates (I was too junior to have a staff) on MTCR issues.
One day I was going over a draft list of controlled items for the MTCR with Bill Root. I think that I had left INR and had been reassigned to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), where I continued to work on MTCR issues. (ACDA was then headed by the Ken Adelman, now an outspoken neo-con. It has since been abolished as a separate agency and folded into the State Department.)
Root was explaining how to make the most effective use of technical specifications, so that manufacturers could understand them, and so that the list actually did what we wanted it to do. While we were talking, he got a phone call from Richard Perle. He suggested that we break for lunch and continue after lunch. When I came back to his office after lunch, his staff told me that he had retired from the State Department. I guess he had had it with Perle. Unfortunately, I continued to cross swords with Perle, his minions and successors for years. I believe that one reason the MTCR is so weak is because Perle wanted it so strong. The Western countries would not accept a regime that was as restrictive as Perle wanted, but because of Perle's pressure within the government, it was impossible for the US Government to reach a reasonable compromise with the Europeans and the Japanese.
One of the first things we needed was a list of items to be controlled by a missile control regime, and one of the State Department experts on controlling high technology was Bill Root, who was the director of the office in the Economic Bureau that handled COCOM issues, the Coordinating Committee that allowed Western countries to coordinate their exports of high technology items to the Soviet Union. Root's assistant, the deputy director, was Vic Comras. Richard Perle took a strong interest in COCOM issues from his Pentagon roost. He and his staff frequently fought with Root and his staff on COCOM issues, just as he and his staff fought with me and my associates (I was too junior to have a staff) on MTCR issues.
One day I was going over a draft list of controlled items for the MTCR with Bill Root. I think that I had left INR and had been reassigned to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), where I continued to work on MTCR issues. (ACDA was then headed by the Ken Adelman, now an outspoken neo-con. It has since been abolished as a separate agency and folded into the State Department.)
Root was explaining how to make the most effective use of technical specifications, so that manufacturers could understand them, and so that the list actually did what we wanted it to do. While we were talking, he got a phone call from Richard Perle. He suggested that we break for lunch and continue after lunch. When I came back to his office after lunch, his staff told me that he had retired from the State Department. I guess he had had it with Perle. Unfortunately, I continued to cross swords with Perle, his minions and successors for years. I believe that one reason the MTCR is so weak is because Perle wanted it so strong. The Western countries would not accept a regime that was as restrictive as Perle wanted, but because of Perle's pressure within the government, it was impossible for the US Government to reach a reasonable compromise with the Europeans and the Japanese.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
First Encounter with Richard Perle
My first encounter with Richard Perle occurred when he decided to stop cooperation with a little known Austrian institute that promoted US-Soviet cooperation -- the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
I had started working in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) on Latin American nuclear proliferation issues because I had served a tour in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and then returned to work on the Brazil desk in the Department. While I was there, the INR analyst who had handled Soviet scientific and technological matters for years retired, and nobody wanted the portfolio. So, I volunteered to take it. According to the article on IIASA, this must have been around 1983, during the Reagan administration.
Not long after that, Richard Perle, who was then Assistant Secretary of Defense, decided to end US cooperation with IIASA. I can't remember why, but presumably because he saw it as a one way flow of technology to the old Soviet Union. I found out about Perle's move through Bill Salmon, who had been Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Paris, and had returned to Washington to work as a scientific advisor to the 7th floor, where the Secretary of State and the Under Secretaries work. He and I both tried to preserve a US role in IIASA on the basis that it was harmless (which it was) and that the scientific cooperation was useful. However, Perle was too well connected politically within the Reagan Administration for a couple of non-political State Department types to defeat. So, soon the official US connection to IIASA was broken. As far as I remember, there were no interagency meetings about the decision. Nobody at a policy level wanted to take on Perle.
I was disappointed because there was no debate on the merits of the decision. Was there really any technology leaking? Probably a little, but probably technology that did not matter and was of no military assistance to the Soviet Union. But it was something that Perle could show his fellow conservative hard-liners that he had done to be tough on the Soviet Union.
I had started working in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) on Latin American nuclear proliferation issues because I had served a tour in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and then returned to work on the Brazil desk in the Department. While I was there, the INR analyst who had handled Soviet scientific and technological matters for years retired, and nobody wanted the portfolio. So, I volunteered to take it. According to the article on IIASA, this must have been around 1983, during the Reagan administration.
Not long after that, Richard Perle, who was then Assistant Secretary of Defense, decided to end US cooperation with IIASA. I can't remember why, but presumably because he saw it as a one way flow of technology to the old Soviet Union. I found out about Perle's move through Bill Salmon, who had been Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Paris, and had returned to Washington to work as a scientific advisor to the 7th floor, where the Secretary of State and the Under Secretaries work. He and I both tried to preserve a US role in IIASA on the basis that it was harmless (which it was) and that the scientific cooperation was useful. However, Perle was too well connected politically within the Reagan Administration for a couple of non-political State Department types to defeat. So, soon the official US connection to IIASA was broken. As far as I remember, there were no interagency meetings about the decision. Nobody at a policy level wanted to take on Perle.
I was disappointed because there was no debate on the merits of the decision. Was there really any technology leaking? Probably a little, but probably technology that did not matter and was of no military assistance to the Soviet Union. But it was something that Perle could show his fellow conservative hard-liners that he had done to be tough on the Soviet Union.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Is Khalilzad the Best US Ambassador for Iraq?
As an American who was in the Foreign Service and whose ancestors lived in the US for several generations, I am usually skeptical of immigrants or first generation Americans who become American foreign affairs officials. Zalmay Khalilzad, the current US Ambassador to Iraq, fits that description. He was born in Afghanistan and has spent much of his career working on Afghan matters, including serving as US Ambassador to Afghanistan before he was Ambassador to Iraq.
There were a number of Soviet emigres who worked on US-Soviet relations in the bad old days of the Cold War. In most cases they were virulently anti-Soviet, which is understandable, since they had hated their native country strongly enough to leave it and come to America. Over the years, a number of wealthy businessmen have paid large political contributions to get an ambassadorial appointment back to the "old country" they came from. That's fine, but can people who leave their own country be objective about the best policies toward it for the US? They should get to know America first, and let their grandchildren work on foreign policy. It's probably okay for them to work in some second-tier role, in academia perhaps, writing articles about foreign policy, or working at the RAND Corporation (as Khalilzad did early on) or some other think tank in a consulting capacity much like at a university. But actually formulating US policy should be left with people who grew up in the US -- for whom there should be no doubt where their loyalties lie. In the old days such newcomers had trouble getting security clearances necessary to work on foreign policy, but it doesn't seem to be a problem today.
Secondly, there are some problems with sending people back to their home countries (or nearby) as representatives of the United States. People there either love them or hate them, but their opinions are often formed not because of the policies they pursue, but because of opinions about them personally in their native lands. Do the Iraqis see Khalilzad as an American or an Afghan? Certainly he speaks for the US, they probably do not see him exactly as they saw John Negroponte, who is of recent Greek ancestry, but at least not an immigrant.
What about Khalilzad's policy recommendations? He had a lot of input on the new Iraqi constitution, but seems to have caved on issues such as the role of Islamic law in the new Iraq and the way women are treated. Is that because it's the best course of action for the US, or is he just used to Islamic law and a subordinate role for women?
There were a number of Soviet emigres who worked on US-Soviet relations in the bad old days of the Cold War. In most cases they were virulently anti-Soviet, which is understandable, since they had hated their native country strongly enough to leave it and come to America. Over the years, a number of wealthy businessmen have paid large political contributions to get an ambassadorial appointment back to the "old country" they came from. That's fine, but can people who leave their own country be objective about the best policies toward it for the US? They should get to know America first, and let their grandchildren work on foreign policy. It's probably okay for them to work in some second-tier role, in academia perhaps, writing articles about foreign policy, or working at the RAND Corporation (as Khalilzad did early on) or some other think tank in a consulting capacity much like at a university. But actually formulating US policy should be left with people who grew up in the US -- for whom there should be no doubt where their loyalties lie. In the old days such newcomers had trouble getting security clearances necessary to work on foreign policy, but it doesn't seem to be a problem today.
Secondly, there are some problems with sending people back to their home countries (or nearby) as representatives of the United States. People there either love them or hate them, but their opinions are often formed not because of the policies they pursue, but because of opinions about them personally in their native lands. Do the Iraqis see Khalilzad as an American or an Afghan? Certainly he speaks for the US, they probably do not see him exactly as they saw John Negroponte, who is of recent Greek ancestry, but at least not an immigrant.
What about Khalilzad's policy recommendations? He had a lot of input on the new Iraqi constitution, but seems to have caved on issues such as the role of Islamic law in the new Iraq and the way women are treated. Is that because it's the best course of action for the US, or is he just used to Islamic law and a subordinate role for women?
Friday, August 26, 2005
Conservatives Favor Fragmentation of Iraq
David Brooks' column in the NYT on Thursday saw as positive the fact that the Iraqi constitution reflects divisions in Iraqi society. Brooks reports that Amb. Peter Galbraith, who is working in Iraq, says:
Churchill wasn't infallible, but he was a heck of a lot smarter than George W. Bush. W has Saddam's gun; that's all he really wanted. He can brandish it in his father's face and ridicule him for not killing Saddam, while Iraq becomes a hotbed of anti-Western terrorism under W's rule. W will let somebody else worry about that after he's gone. It will be interesting to see if David Brooks is gone from the NYT after the Bush adminstration leaves town. I really thought he was smarter than this.
What Iraqis don't want is a united Iraq. Apparently this is okay with Brooks and his buddies. The Iraqis want three separate countries, perhaps loosely united for a short time. But over the longer term the Shiites want to unite with Iran, the Kurds want to form their own country, Kurdistan, taking the parts of Turkey and Iran that are predominately Kurdish. The Sunnis lose out, because the Kurds and Shiites have all the oil, but the Sunnis have the heart and soul of Iraq, the city of Baghdad, which will have no oil income to support it relatively huge population. The Bushies don't care. Already, under Bush's US rule Baghdad has no infrastructure, no security, no electricity, no water, no sewer.There is, he [Galbraith] says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun. In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting. This constitution gives each group what it wants.
"It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill."
Churchill wasn't infallible, but he was a heck of a lot smarter than George W. Bush. W has Saddam's gun; that's all he really wanted. He can brandish it in his father's face and ridicule him for not killing Saddam, while Iraq becomes a hotbed of anti-Western terrorism under W's rule. W will let somebody else worry about that after he's gone. It will be interesting to see if David Brooks is gone from the NYT after the Bush adminstration leaves town. I really thought he was smarter than this.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Hegel & Kissinger on Iraq and Vietnam
I think Sen. Chuck Hegel is right when he says that Iraq is looking more and more like Vietnam, and that we need to figure out what to do. He says that we should not destabilize the Middle East: that the longer we stay, the more like is destabilization. I think that leaving any time soon is more likely to produce destabilization than staying. We need a strong hand to put down the insurgency and prevent Iraq from degenerating into civil war under a fundamentalist Islamic government.
In the Washington Post, Kissinger raises the question of what criteria we use to determine whether we are winning in Iraq. If we don't win, Iraq may degenerate into civil war, and the radicals will become ascendant in the Middle East. It would be ironic if the domino theory that politicians used as a justification for the Vietnam War turned out to be more applicable to the Iraq war.
Now is when we need the support of the international community, but because Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld gave the finger to the UN and the international community, we are unlikely to get much support. It may be that they will be so worried about the world instability that the US bull-in-the-china-shop approach has created that they will do something, if only for their own self preservation. But sending John Bolton to the UN is yet another example of Bush giving the finger to the international community, making the cooperation of other countries less likely.
In the Washington Post, Kissinger raises the question of what criteria we use to determine whether we are winning in Iraq. If we don't win, Iraq may degenerate into civil war, and the radicals will become ascendant in the Middle East. It would be ironic if the domino theory that politicians used as a justification for the Vietnam War turned out to be more applicable to the Iraq war.
Now is when we need the support of the international community, but because Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld gave the finger to the UN and the international community, we are unlikely to get much support. It may be that they will be so worried about the world instability that the US bull-in-the-china-shop approach has created that they will do something, if only for their own self preservation. But sending John Bolton to the UN is yet another example of Bush giving the finger to the international community, making the cooperation of other countries less likely.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Constitution Failure Could Be Chance for New Start in Iraq
The US plan for Iraq, if there ever was one, is going down the tubes fast. The Iraqis have demonstrated that they are not ready for self-government. Thus, if the constitution writing effort fails, the US should go back in with a strong man, like Gen. MacArthur in Japan, who will take control for a few years, whip the country into shape, and write a constitution for them in the process.
The US invasion of Iraq opened Pandora's box. It made Iraq a hotbed of Middle Eastern terrorism, which it was not before the invasion. We must put the lid back on. We need to double or triple the number of troops in Iraq for years to come, until order is restored and the infrastructure works -- electricity, water, sewers, etc. We need to kick out Halliburton and get some competent people in there who know what they are doing to restore services.
This is our chance. Declare the Iraqi efforts so far a failure and take control. Do it now! It's our country, and now we are just destroying it.
The US invasion of Iraq opened Pandora's box. It made Iraq a hotbed of Middle Eastern terrorism, which it was not before the invasion. We must put the lid back on. We need to double or triple the number of troops in Iraq for years to come, until order is restored and the infrastructure works -- electricity, water, sewers, etc. We need to kick out Halliburton and get some competent people in there who know what they are doing to restore services.
This is our chance. Declare the Iraqi efforts so far a failure and take control. Do it now! It's our country, and now we are just destroying it.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Pakistan Tests Nuclear Capable Missile
Bloomberg is reporting in a story datelined August 11 that Pakistan just tested a nuclear capable missile. What a surprise! No proliferation problem here!
Bloomberg reported:
Bloomberg reported:
"Pakistan today conducted a successful test of its first-ever ground-launched cruise missile HATF-VII, also known as Babur,'' the army said from Islamabad. The "Babur cruise has the capability to carry nuclear and conventional warheads to a range of 500 kilometers (300 miles) with a pinpoint accuracy.''
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Proliferation Problems in Iran and North Korea
The US is having trouble enforcing its non-proliferation policies against both Iran and North Korea simultaneously, and it's no surprise. One of the problems is India. The US just gave India a get out of jail free card, despite the fact that it was one of the first proliferators. The lesson of India is that if you proliferate and wait patiently, you will be forgiven and you can keep your atomic bombs. Our policy toward Pakistan gives sort of the same message, although somewhat ambiguously. Pakistan has turned into one of our allies in the war against terrorism, despite the fact that it is a notorious proliferator, and has helped other countries (Iran, North Korea) with their nuclear programs.
India is not such a bad country in this regard, and we probably need to work out some transitional arrangement for it to enter the nuclear club, but just to admit it to the club won't work, because everybody else will want to follow India's lead. We need some new agreement to replace or supplement the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It would have to set standards that tend to discourage other countries from following India's example, and that place stringent controls on their nuclear weapons. Ironically, we probably are happy that India has nuclear weapons with which to deter Chinese aggression, while we presumably are unhappy that there is something of a nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has shown total disregard for legalistic solutions to international problems. But that's what we need here. It's hard to envision a network of military alliances that would send US troops in on India's side of it fights China, but would bring our troops in on Pakistan's side if India fights Pakistan. Meanwhile what do we do about Iran and North Korea, and maybe later Brazil, Argentina and some other countries? They see India as the model for developing nuclear weapons. Just hang tough and you'll get to keep them.
The fact that negotiations with Iran and North Korea are going nowhere illustrates the weakness of this policy. It was probably influenced by John Bolton, who thankfully will be otherwise occupied, until we bring the issue to the UN Security Council for sanctions. Speaking of sanctions, what will they be? It's easy for the US to support any sanctions, because we do almost no business with Iran or North Korea. But if you don't do any business, sanctions have no effect. Countries that do more business with Iran (Russia, China) will be much less enthusiastic about sanctions.
India is not such a bad country in this regard, and we probably need to work out some transitional arrangement for it to enter the nuclear club, but just to admit it to the club won't work, because everybody else will want to follow India's lead. We need some new agreement to replace or supplement the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It would have to set standards that tend to discourage other countries from following India's example, and that place stringent controls on their nuclear weapons. Ironically, we probably are happy that India has nuclear weapons with which to deter Chinese aggression, while we presumably are unhappy that there is something of a nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has shown total disregard for legalistic solutions to international problems. But that's what we need here. It's hard to envision a network of military alliances that would send US troops in on India's side of it fights China, but would bring our troops in on Pakistan's side if India fights Pakistan. Meanwhile what do we do about Iran and North Korea, and maybe later Brazil, Argentina and some other countries? They see India as the model for developing nuclear weapons. Just hang tough and you'll get to keep them.
The fact that negotiations with Iran and North Korea are going nowhere illustrates the weakness of this policy. It was probably influenced by John Bolton, who thankfully will be otherwise occupied, until we bring the issue to the UN Security Council for sanctions. Speaking of sanctions, what will they be? It's easy for the US to support any sanctions, because we do almost no business with Iran or North Korea. But if you don't do any business, sanctions have no effect. Countries that do more business with Iran (Russia, China) will be much less enthusiastic about sanctions.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Presbyterians Censure Investment in Israel
According to the Washington Post, "A Presbyterian committee accused five companies Friday of contributing to 'ongoing violence that plagues Israel and Palestine' and pledged to use the church's multimillion-dollar stock holdings in the businesses to pressure them to stop."
I was reminded of this when I checked on the Simon Wiesenthal Center web site for my previous post. Complaining about this Presbyterian action is at the top of the Center's list of concerns. It also complains about an action by the Disciples of Christ calling on Israel to tear down the wall it is building to separate Israeli Jews from Palestinian Arabs.
I certainly support these actions by the churches. Israel must be more loving in its treatment of the Palestinians, who lived in Palestine for centuries before it became Israel as a result of a UN resolution shortly after the end of World War II. Hooray for main line Christian churches! I don't totally understand, however, the love affair between fundamentalist Christian evangelicals and Israel.
I was reminded of this when I checked on the Simon Wiesenthal Center web site for my previous post. Complaining about this Presbyterian action is at the top of the Center's list of concerns. It also complains about an action by the Disciples of Christ calling on Israel to tear down the wall it is building to separate Israeli Jews from Palestinian Arabs.
I certainly support these actions by the churches. Israel must be more loving in its treatment of the Palestinians, who lived in Palestine for centuries before it became Israel as a result of a UN resolution shortly after the end of World War II. Hooray for main line Christian churches! I don't totally understand, however, the love affair between fundamentalist Christian evangelicals and Israel.
Big Jewish Contributor Named Ambassador to Netherlands
I have been worried about Jewish influence on the Bush Administration ever since the war in Iraq. The US was not significantly threatened by Iraq, but Israel was. Most of the neo-cons arguing for going to war with Iraq were Jewish: William Kristol, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Ken Adelman, etc. But lots of the big Jewish donors are Democrats: George Soros, for example. Was there big Jewish money behind the Republicans, too? Turns out there was and is: Roland E. Arnall, who was recently named by Bush to be the US Ambassador to the Netherlands, for example, according to the LA Times. Interestingly, one of the pictures accompanying the story on the LA Times web site is of Arnall posing with Jewish Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman.
From the LA Times story, it sounds like Arnall is probably a sleazebag. It says his mortgage company, Ameriquest, used boiler room tactics, bait-and-switch tactics, etc. But he made a lot of money, some of which he apparently gave to George Bush and his Republican colleagues. His main claim to political fame is that he financed the Simon Wiesenthal Center to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.
I have been very worried that one origin of the Iraq war was that after 9/11 Jews paid Bush and company to send Christian soldiers to kill Muslims for Israel. That's probably too cynical, but this is some indirect evidence of that motivation.
From the LA Times story, it sounds like Arnall is probably a sleazebag. It says his mortgage company, Ameriquest, used boiler room tactics, bait-and-switch tactics, etc. But he made a lot of money, some of which he apparently gave to George Bush and his Republican colleagues. His main claim to political fame is that he financed the Simon Wiesenthal Center to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.
I have been very worried that one origin of the Iraq war was that after 9/11 Jews paid Bush and company to send Christian soldiers to kill Muslims for Israel. That's probably too cynical, but this is some indirect evidence of that motivation.
US Plans to Cut and Run in Iraq
I am not a fan of the Iraq war, but I am also not a fan of the Pentagon's plans to pull out. The problem is that we don't have enough troops in Iraq now, not that we have too many. Bush and Cheney were draft dodgers and are now chicken hawks. The Iraq invasion has turned into a mess, and they have no idea how to clean it up. We need US troops on every street corner to establish order, not a few hundred troops driving into a city, shooting some people and then leaving again. The insurgents just come right back.
And we need to re-establish the Iraqi infrastructure. Maybe Saddam Hussein is responsible for the damage to the electrical grid, the water and sewer system, the oil wells, etc. Or, maybe we did more damage than expected when we bombed the hell out of Iraq during the invasion. In any case, the Pottery Barn rule enunciated by Colin Powell applies. You break it, you own it, and you've got to fix it. A significant percentage of ordinary Iraqis think life was better under Hussein than it is now, because there is no security, and public services don't work. Halliburton is incompetent to get the public services working despite the billions it is getting paid.
Iraq is likely to degenerate into civil war. The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will end up fighting each other, each with additional support or opposition from foreign neighbors. The Iranians will help the Shiites. The bulk of the Arab world (which is mainly Sunni) will help the Sunnis, and the Turks will work against the Kurds, because they fear the creation of a Kurdistan nation that will include part of Turkey. We opened Pandora's box when we invaded, and Bush and company don't have a clue how to close it.
I think Sam Donaldson was right on ABC news on Sunday morning. The administration wants the Iraq constitutional assembly to stay on schedule and wants all the other elections, etc., on schedule, so that we can declare victory and get the hell out. It worked in Vietnam. (Everybody knows how well that war ended.) Bush and company think it will work in Iraq, too. It will probably work about as well. Remember the genocide in the Cambodian killing fields. Basically the world looked the other way, and we will probably look the other way when the killing fields in Iraq run red with blood again. It probably won't be Saddam Hussein who does the blood letting, but it will probably be somebody about as bad.
And we need to re-establish the Iraqi infrastructure. Maybe Saddam Hussein is responsible for the damage to the electrical grid, the water and sewer system, the oil wells, etc. Or, maybe we did more damage than expected when we bombed the hell out of Iraq during the invasion. In any case, the Pottery Barn rule enunciated by Colin Powell applies. You break it, you own it, and you've got to fix it. A significant percentage of ordinary Iraqis think life was better under Hussein than it is now, because there is no security, and public services don't work. Halliburton is incompetent to get the public services working despite the billions it is getting paid.
Iraq is likely to degenerate into civil war. The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will end up fighting each other, each with additional support or opposition from foreign neighbors. The Iranians will help the Shiites. The bulk of the Arab world (which is mainly Sunni) will help the Sunnis, and the Turks will work against the Kurds, because they fear the creation of a Kurdistan nation that will include part of Turkey. We opened Pandora's box when we invaded, and Bush and company don't have a clue how to close it.
I think Sam Donaldson was right on ABC news on Sunday morning. The administration wants the Iraq constitutional assembly to stay on schedule and wants all the other elections, etc., on schedule, so that we can declare victory and get the hell out. It worked in Vietnam. (Everybody knows how well that war ended.) Bush and company think it will work in Iraq, too. It will probably work about as well. Remember the genocide in the Cambodian killing fields. Basically the world looked the other way, and we will probably look the other way when the killing fields in Iraq run red with blood again. It probably won't be Saddam Hussein who does the blood letting, but it will probably be somebody about as bad.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
How I Came To Be A Democrat
The first political event I ever attended was a Republican rally for Barry Goldwater for President in Montgomery, Alabama. After serving in the Army in Vietnam and joining the Foreign Service, I may have become pretty liberal. What happened when I was assigned to Warsaw, Poland, in the mid-1990's may have confirmed my then existing predilections.
I was assigned to be the Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Warsaw, where my main job was supposed to be to manage scientific cooperation between the US and Poland under an arrangement named the Maria Sklodowska Curie Fund II. It was Fund II, because the first fund had been closed during the bad old days of Polish martial law. An agreement to work under the second Fund had been signed just before I left for Poland, and it was to last for five years.
After about one year, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over Congress and cancelled the funding for our Polish cooperation. The agreement had a clause that said if either of the parties was unable to fund the cooperation, it would end. This clause had been included with Poland in mind, because it faced so many financial problems as it came out of 50 years of Communist rule, but America took advantage of it. The Polish Foreign Ministry called me in almost weekly to complain that the US was not living up to its agreement. I told them that I would report their complaints to Washington, but if they were really serious, they would raise the matter with the Ambassador in Warsaw, or with the Secretary of State or one of his immediate subordinates in Washington. But Poland then wanted more than anything to be included in NATO, and it would not do anything that might endanger that goal, such as making a big stink about the Maria Sklodowska Curie Fund. So, they kept raising the matter with me. Although I knew there was nothing personal about it, I ended up taking it personally. I began to feel that I was at least partly responsible for American breaking its word to Poland. I began to feel that I could not represent an America that did not keep its word.
It happened that about this time I became eligible to retire from the Foreign Service, and after discussing it with my wife, I had about decided to retire, so that I would not have to represent a dishonest government. You may say that it is naive to think that any government is going to be totally honest. But I think that if a government is going to be dishonest, there should be a reason for it. For example, virtually every Foreign Service officer will have to lie at one time or another because he or she knows something from intelligence that he or she cannot admit knowing without compromising that intelligence. (Unless of course he has the same lack of morals and patriotism as Robert Novak.) But in this case, the United States was not going to be bankrupted by paying for continued scientific cooperation with Poland, which was the circumstance foreseen by the clause in question.
In any case, I was about to retire, when out of the blue I got a call from Washington asking me if I would agree to go to Rome, where the Science Counselor had be unexpectedly removed. He was not a Foreign Service officer, and the State Department said that after several years, he could not continue to serve in Rome without becoming one, which for some reason he would not do. So, my wife agreed to move from Warsaw to Rome with me.
When I got to Rome, it turned out that one of my main duties was to handle issues involving the North Korean nuclear program, in particular the follow-up to the KEDO agreement, which promised North Korea two Western style reactors that do not produce weapons usable by-products in return for shutting down the plutonium production reactor(s) that North Korea had been using. In addition, the US, Japan and South Korea promised North Korea to supply it with a certain amount of fuel oil to provide energy to replace that produced by the indigenous reactors until the new non-proliferating reactors could come on line.
Once again, the Republican Congress refused to appropriate the money for all the fuel oil that the US had promised. So, one of my jobs was to go the Italians (both in their national capacity and at that time as the Presidency of the European Union) and ask them to contribute money to make up for what the Congress had refused to appropriate. Following up on my experience with the Maria Sklodowska Curie Fund II in Poland, I was not happy. I felt that once again the US was failing to honor its promises. Thus, I told the Embassy that I would stay until Italy relinquished its presidency of the EU, but then I would retire.
Another more personal matter intervened, as well. After I agreed to move from Warsaw to Rome, my wife and I decided that it would save the government money, and would be interesting for us, to drive from Warsaw to Rome. We could have had our car shipped, and had the government purchase airline tickets, etc., but we could drive in a few days. Hotels, food and gas would certainly be less than airline tickets and the cost of shipping our car. Plus, we could carry stuff in our car that would reduce the amount we had to ship at government expense. In any case, we had packed everything. Big stuff had been shipped to Rome. The car was loaded to roof, and was parked outside ready to leave that night for Krakow, our first stop. I was saying good-bye to friends in the Embassy, and while I was in the defense attache's office, someone came in to tell me that I had just had a call from Rome saying, "Don't leave!" It was tough to get me the message, because the call had come to a Pole in our personnel section who could not come to the defense attache's office, because it was in a secure, American-only part of the Embassy. So, the Pole had to find an American to deliver the message.
It turned out that the problem was that Newt Gingrich had closed down the American government, and only essential personnel could work. However, I had no place to live, either in Warsaw (since we had moved out) or in Rome. I was furious and called Rome. Because I was just being a good soldier and going where the State Department asked me to go, I didn't know any of the personalities in Rome. It turned out that the DCM (the deputy ambassador) was an old friend from an assignment in Brasilia, Brazil. He arranged some deal with the personnel office in Rome that allowed us to travel. But for what I considered a personal insult, possibly stranding by wife and me with nowhere to live in Warsaw during a cold November, Newt Gingrich won my undying displeasure (a mild word). I also thought it was ironic that the Republicans claim to be the party of business, but if there is one thing that businesses have to do, it's meet a payroll. Newt couldn't do that. Now meeting payrolls is less important. Many businesses now leave their employees twisting in the wind, especially when it comes to health care and retirement. Newt was ahead of his time, unfortunately for us all.
Ironically, when we returned to northern Virginia after I retired, in the first election I voted in after my return to the States, I voted for Republican John Warner for senator, because I thought (and still think) he was (and is) a good man. But he was the exception. In general, no more Republicans.
However, I still think Goldwater, like John Warner and John McCain, was probably a good man, much better than most of the rest of the sleazeballs currently occupying the seats of power in the Republican party he helped create.
I was assigned to be the Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Warsaw, where my main job was supposed to be to manage scientific cooperation between the US and Poland under an arrangement named the Maria Sklodowska Curie Fund II. It was Fund II, because the first fund had been closed during the bad old days of Polish martial law. An agreement to work under the second Fund had been signed just before I left for Poland, and it was to last for five years.
After about one year, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over Congress and cancelled the funding for our Polish cooperation. The agreement had a clause that said if either of the parties was unable to fund the cooperation, it would end. This clause had been included with Poland in mind, because it faced so many financial problems as it came out of 50 years of Communist rule, but America took advantage of it. The Polish Foreign Ministry called me in almost weekly to complain that the US was not living up to its agreement. I told them that I would report their complaints to Washington, but if they were really serious, they would raise the matter with the Ambassador in Warsaw, or with the Secretary of State or one of his immediate subordinates in Washington. But Poland then wanted more than anything to be included in NATO, and it would not do anything that might endanger that goal, such as making a big stink about the Maria Sklodowska Curie Fund. So, they kept raising the matter with me. Although I knew there was nothing personal about it, I ended up taking it personally. I began to feel that I was at least partly responsible for American breaking its word to Poland. I began to feel that I could not represent an America that did not keep its word.
It happened that about this time I became eligible to retire from the Foreign Service, and after discussing it with my wife, I had about decided to retire, so that I would not have to represent a dishonest government. You may say that it is naive to think that any government is going to be totally honest. But I think that if a government is going to be dishonest, there should be a reason for it. For example, virtually every Foreign Service officer will have to lie at one time or another because he or she knows something from intelligence that he or she cannot admit knowing without compromising that intelligence. (Unless of course he has the same lack of morals and patriotism as Robert Novak.) But in this case, the United States was not going to be bankrupted by paying for continued scientific cooperation with Poland, which was the circumstance foreseen by the clause in question.
In any case, I was about to retire, when out of the blue I got a call from Washington asking me if I would agree to go to Rome, where the Science Counselor had be unexpectedly removed. He was not a Foreign Service officer, and the State Department said that after several years, he could not continue to serve in Rome without becoming one, which for some reason he would not do. So, my wife agreed to move from Warsaw to Rome with me.
When I got to Rome, it turned out that one of my main duties was to handle issues involving the North Korean nuclear program, in particular the follow-up to the KEDO agreement, which promised North Korea two Western style reactors that do not produce weapons usable by-products in return for shutting down the plutonium production reactor(s) that North Korea had been using. In addition, the US, Japan and South Korea promised North Korea to supply it with a certain amount of fuel oil to provide energy to replace that produced by the indigenous reactors until the new non-proliferating reactors could come on line.
Once again, the Republican Congress refused to appropriate the money for all the fuel oil that the US had promised. So, one of my jobs was to go the Italians (both in their national capacity and at that time as the Presidency of the European Union) and ask them to contribute money to make up for what the Congress had refused to appropriate. Following up on my experience with the Maria Sklodowska Curie Fund II in Poland, I was not happy. I felt that once again the US was failing to honor its promises. Thus, I told the Embassy that I would stay until Italy relinquished its presidency of the EU, but then I would retire.
Another more personal matter intervened, as well. After I agreed to move from Warsaw to Rome, my wife and I decided that it would save the government money, and would be interesting for us, to drive from Warsaw to Rome. We could have had our car shipped, and had the government purchase airline tickets, etc., but we could drive in a few days. Hotels, food and gas would certainly be less than airline tickets and the cost of shipping our car. Plus, we could carry stuff in our car that would reduce the amount we had to ship at government expense. In any case, we had packed everything. Big stuff had been shipped to Rome. The car was loaded to roof, and was parked outside ready to leave that night for Krakow, our first stop. I was saying good-bye to friends in the Embassy, and while I was in the defense attache's office, someone came in to tell me that I had just had a call from Rome saying, "Don't leave!" It was tough to get me the message, because the call had come to a Pole in our personnel section who could not come to the defense attache's office, because it was in a secure, American-only part of the Embassy. So, the Pole had to find an American to deliver the message.
It turned out that the problem was that Newt Gingrich had closed down the American government, and only essential personnel could work. However, I had no place to live, either in Warsaw (since we had moved out) or in Rome. I was furious and called Rome. Because I was just being a good soldier and going where the State Department asked me to go, I didn't know any of the personalities in Rome. It turned out that the DCM (the deputy ambassador) was an old friend from an assignment in Brasilia, Brazil. He arranged some deal with the personnel office in Rome that allowed us to travel. But for what I considered a personal insult, possibly stranding by wife and me with nowhere to live in Warsaw during a cold November, Newt Gingrich won my undying displeasure (a mild word). I also thought it was ironic that the Republicans claim to be the party of business, but if there is one thing that businesses have to do, it's meet a payroll. Newt couldn't do that. Now meeting payrolls is less important. Many businesses now leave their employees twisting in the wind, especially when it comes to health care and retirement. Newt was ahead of his time, unfortunately for us all.
Ironically, when we returned to northern Virginia after I retired, in the first election I voted in after my return to the States, I voted for Republican John Warner for senator, because I thought (and still think) he was (and is) a good man. But he was the exception. In general, no more Republicans.
However, I still think Goldwater, like John Warner and John McCain, was probably a good man, much better than most of the rest of the sleazeballs currently occupying the seats of power in the Republican party he helped create.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)