What Happens to Saddam?
The New York Times reported Friday that a weeklong training session for Iraqi judges and prosecutors who are supposed to try Saddam Hussein did not go well. Western experts said the Iraqis were not acquainted with the complexities of international law used to deal with mass killing and genocide.
On the other hand, the UN said that Secretary General Kofi Annan had expressed "serious doubts" that the Iraqi court could meet "relevant international standards," worried that its ability to apply the death penalty went against UN policies, and therefore Annan had concluded that UN legal experts should not assist the Iraqis. According to the article, an Iraqi said he would welcome UN participation because, "It would stop the impression that the whole thing is run by Americans."
The Washington Post described the UN decision as "a blow to the United States and Iraq's interim government." The Post added, "A senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing diplomacy, said the Iraqi tribunals would proceed without U.N. support, with the first trials against Hussein's associates starting in the new year."
The articles do not mention the role of Ahmad Chalabi's cousin, Salem Chalabi. Salem was initially named to head the war crimes tribunal, but has recently been removed from that position because of accusations of his involvement in criminal activity, according to CNN.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Are We at War with Terrorism?
An article in today's Washington Post questioning whether there will be a terrorist attack to disrupt US elections raises the question of whether we are really in a war against terrorism comparable to the war in Iraq, or whether the real war on terrorism is more akin to the war on organized crime or drugs. The first question is what we mean by war. In America, the word war has been applied to wars on poverty, wars against crime, other types of "war" which are not one nation fighting another. Therein lies the problem, the war on terror is not a war against another nation, or an alliance of nations, but against people from many nations who share certain beliefs and hatreds. The nations don't share these dangerous values -- a relatively small percentage of the their populations do.
It's very possible that the 9/11 attacks were a fluke. If airport security had just been a little tighter, they never would have happened. If the FBI and CIA had just worked a little harder, they never would have happened. We were fighting 20-30 people who were intent on destroying thousands of Americans, but nevertheless, wars usually involve tens or hundreds of thousands of people fighting as many on the other side, perhaps millions. That's certainly not the case here, and Bush has never defined how his war on terrorism will be fought, unlike the conventional war on Iraq, which was fought in a relatively conventional way.
Can Bush really defend America if he is fighting the wrong war? I think there is a good chance that Bush is fighting the wrong war and that what he is doing is decreasing, not increasing, America's security.
An article in today's Washington Post questioning whether there will be a terrorist attack to disrupt US elections raises the question of whether we are really in a war against terrorism comparable to the war in Iraq, or whether the real war on terrorism is more akin to the war on organized crime or drugs. The first question is what we mean by war. In America, the word war has been applied to wars on poverty, wars against crime, other types of "war" which are not one nation fighting another. Therein lies the problem, the war on terror is not a war against another nation, or an alliance of nations, but against people from many nations who share certain beliefs and hatreds. The nations don't share these dangerous values -- a relatively small percentage of the their populations do.
It's very possible that the 9/11 attacks were a fluke. If airport security had just been a little tighter, they never would have happened. If the FBI and CIA had just worked a little harder, they never would have happened. We were fighting 20-30 people who were intent on destroying thousands of Americans, but nevertheless, wars usually involve tens or hundreds of thousands of people fighting as many on the other side, perhaps millions. That's certainly not the case here, and Bush has never defined how his war on terrorism will be fought, unlike the conventional war on Iraq, which was fought in a relatively conventional way.
Can Bush really defend America if he is fighting the wrong war? I think there is a good chance that Bush is fighting the wrong war and that what he is doing is decreasing, not increasing, America's security.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Background on Unrest in Pakistan
The August 28 Economist article on whether Musharraf will retire from the military for the remainder of his rule as President, had some interesting comments on continuing instability in Pakistan. The article said, "Despite ... protestations of friendship to Harmid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, who was visiting Islamabad this week, there are still suspicions that Pakistan is less than zealous in pursuing remnants of the Taliban on its Afghan borders. Curbing Al-Qaeda-linked terror at home, however, is a matter, quite literally, of life and death for Pakistan's leaders. General Musharraf has narrowly escaped two assassination attempts. And nine people died in an attack last month on Mr Aziz," the new prime minister.
Given that Pakistan seems to be our most important ally against terrorism in the region, and that it possesses nuclear weapons, its commitment to anti-terrorism and its allegiance to the West, particularly the US, is crucial to our continuing our current policies in the region.
The August 28 Economist article on whether Musharraf will retire from the military for the remainder of his rule as President, had some interesting comments on continuing instability in Pakistan. The article said, "Despite ... protestations of friendship to Harmid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, who was visiting Islamabad this week, there are still suspicions that Pakistan is less than zealous in pursuing remnants of the Taliban on its Afghan borders. Curbing Al-Qaeda-linked terror at home, however, is a matter, quite literally, of life and death for Pakistan's leaders. General Musharraf has narrowly escaped two assassination attempts. And nine people died in an attack last month on Mr Aziz," the new prime minister.
Given that Pakistan seems to be our most important ally against terrorism in the region, and that it possesses nuclear weapons, its commitment to anti-terrorism and its allegiance to the West, particularly the US, is crucial to our continuing our current policies in the region.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
US Acceptance of Israeli Abuses
Two recent articles highlight US acceptance of Israeli abuses of Palestinians, most recently in Gaza. The Washington Post reported today on the Human Rights Watch's criticism of Israel's demolishing houses in Gaza. "The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law," Human Rights Watch said in its 133-page report, adding that in most of the cases "the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity."
On October 16, the Post reported that in an interview with the Financial Times, Brent Scowcroft said that President Bush is "mesmerized" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Post said that Scowcroft further told the Financial Times, "Sharon just has him [Bush] wrapped around his little finger." Broadening his view, Scowcroft said that relations with Europe are "in general bad."
President Bush must be unhappy when his Daddy's old associates pull out the long knives. More and more, however, it is looking like Daddy was right not to march to Baghdad following his victory in the 1991 Iraq war.
Two recent articles highlight US acceptance of Israeli abuses of Palestinians, most recently in Gaza. The Washington Post reported today on the Human Rights Watch's criticism of Israel's demolishing houses in Gaza. "The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law," Human Rights Watch said in its 133-page report, adding that in most of the cases "the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity."
On October 16, the Post reported that in an interview with the Financial Times, Brent Scowcroft said that President Bush is "mesmerized" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Post said that Scowcroft further told the Financial Times, "Sharon just has him [Bush] wrapped around his little finger." Broadening his view, Scowcroft said that relations with Europe are "in general bad."
President Bush must be unhappy when his Daddy's old associates pull out the long knives. More and more, however, it is looking like Daddy was right not to march to Baghdad following his victory in the 1991 Iraq war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)