 |
November 30, 2006The Edgy SaudisNawaf Obaid says he is writing this in his personal capacity and that it doesn't reflect official Saudi policy, but it still struck me as quite a read: Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region. By the way, I hope I don't hear any Administration players telling us we have another 'clarifying moment' or 'historic opportunity' or 'birth pangs' or some such at hand with an opportunity to counter Iran with some far-flung Sunni alliance (that, to boot, will get the Syrians in line!)--so as to cheerlead rising Sunni-Shi'a tension, or argue that no real action on the Arab-Israeli front is required. That would be delusional in the extreme. But, and especially with the "Zs" gone (Zelikow, Zoellick), I guess that wouldn't be a huge surprise now, would it? P.S. I suspect part of the motivation behind Obaid placing this somewhat alarmist piece in the WaPo is so as to supply some fodder for the Beltway debate, meaning another argument in the quiver for those fighting against precipitous U.S. troop withdrawals and/or fixed, automatic deadlines. Posted by Gregory at November 30, 2006 05:12 AMComments
well, I'll just repeat what I posted over at Clemons blog... ********* I smell a bluff -- one designed specifically on behalf of the Bush regime for consumption of American readers. Saudi's "army" consists of no more than 200,000 troops, and is known for its absenteeism and lack of discipline. And it does not have a draft. Iran, on the other hand, has a "regular" army of 350,000 (including 220,000 conscripts), (plus and additional 125,000 strong "revolutionary guard), and requires 18 months of military service for all males. While these "conscripts" do not recieve the same level of training as the professional military, the very existence of a huge pool of former conscripts means that Iran could far more quickly mobilize should the Saudi's attempt to carry out their threat. Moreover, the Saudi's also know that the "oil weapon" is a very blunt sword indeed.... Saudi Arabia could attempt to ramp up production --- but Iran can very easily prevent most Saudi oil from reaching the marketplace by blocking the Straits of Hormuz (simultaneously preventing Kuwait, Qatar and other US allies from exporting oil as well, driving the price of Iranian oil throught the roof, and putting the US economy into the dumpster.) So militarily, the Saudi's aren't really a threat to Iran. Moreover, there are two other factors involved here -- First there is the very strong presence of Sunni fundamentalists who would love to take advantage of the situation, and overthrow the Saudi royal family. Secondly, the Saudi's also have a considerable (15% of the population) Shiite minority that is concentrated in its eastern (and oil producing) provinces --- and the Saudis have a long history of oppression and discrimination against that minority.... In other words, anyone who thinks that the spoiled rotten Saudi royalty would risk everything in order to act on their threat against Iran is nuts. (I fully expect the right-winger to believe it....) *********** Like I said in the beginning of my post, this is completely the work of the Bush and Cheney. I personally think that what it signifies is that the ISG will now, contrary to CW of two weeks ago , be calling for a "timetable for phased withdrawn" and from Iraq when it releases its report. The deterioration in Iraq has been so swift and severe that other "ideas" have been taken off the table as events have progress faster than the "consensus" process -- the "baseline" of those discussions was an Iraq of 3-6 months ago, and Baker et.al. read the papers, and know that is no longer the reality in Iraq. So this op-ed is Bushco's response -- get Saudi Arabia to issue an IDLE threat of a region wide war if the US leaves "uninvited" as a means of continuing the war for the next two years. Bush simply refuses to admit that he has failed, and has presided over the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history---and rather than face that fact, he will send more thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis to the slaugterhouse. **************
I'm reading Woodward's "State of Denial" right now. I'm rather fascinated by the leeway the Bush Administration gives to Bandar and the Saudis on foreign policy. Was Cheney called to Saudi Arabia or did he instigate that visit? My personal feeling is that the Saud Royal family is starting to take charge of the Bush Administration, because Bush is such a failure. They see it, and they have to do something or they really will be in trouble. Posted by: Dan at November 30, 2006 03:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
My personal feeling is that the Saud Royal family is starting to take charge of the Bush Administration, because Bush is such a failure. They see it, and they have to do something or they really will be in trouble. although the Saudi's may have instigated it, I think that Poppy is calling the shots now. Gates isn't really there to be Sec. of Defense -- he's there as a constant reminder that he personally knows where all Junior's bodies are buried, and that little Georgie had better do what he is told unless he wants some of that stuff showing up in the papers..... Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 30, 2006 03:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
Here's the question I'm wondering about more and more....just who is really calling the shots? Poppy or the Saud Royal family? Meaning, is Poppy telling the Saudis what to do, or are the Saudis telling Poppy what to do? I'm getting an eerie feeling like Poppy's relationship with the Saudis is much like Thomas Jefferson's relationship with the French during John Adams's presidency... Posted by: Dan at November 30, 2006 04:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
I don't know PL. The regional war threat is real, even if the Saudis have ulterior motives for pushing this line now. If the Shiites move against the Sunni population en masse, there will be an influx of money, arms and logistics from the neighboring Sunni states. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an army to speak of really, but they have tons of money, and with that, arms are easy to come by. Posted by: Eric Martin at November 30, 2006 05:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
I don't know PL. The regional war threat is real, even if the Saudis have ulterior motives for pushing this line now. If the Shiites move against the Sunni population en masse, there will be an influx of money, arms and logistics from the neighboring Sunni states. i think it really all depends upon the nature of the "move against the Sunnis". If its "genocidal", yes then I would expect money and arms to flow to Sunni insurgents from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia. But I don't see "genocide" -- or anything approaching it -- in the cards. We're not really hearing the rhetoric that would be the precursor of genocide or "ethnic cleansing" coming out of Iraq. What we are witnessing in the "civil war" is an spiralling escalation of sectarian inspired revenge killings -- and IMHO, once the US is out of Iraq, the people who can effectively intervene (Iran, and Sistani) in this cycle of violence will do so. What I expect to see, if the US "cuts and runs", is the defacto partition of Iraq by Iran -- Sunni's will be given a "homeland" in western Iraq (supervised by Syria), but will also be placed under strict/authoritarian restrictions in Shiite dominated areas until things settle down. Right now, the central problem in Iraq is the lack of authority -- and it is the ineffective and counter-productive presence of US forces that prevents the imposition of any real "authority" in Iraq. Iran can't exert its full martial/military influence until the US leaves -- and Sistani isn't going to attempt to intervene until his intervention will have a significant impact. (i.e. once the US leaves, Sistani will push his weight around again.) Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 30, 2006 06:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
First of all, Sistani has been attempting to intervene for quite some time now, and has been ignored. So, he recently announced that he will be disengaging from the political realm because....nobody is listening to him anyway!!! On top of that, Iraqi government forces have been harrassing his small private security detail and otherwise hemming him in. Expecting Sistani to emerge post-US withdrawal as the great stabilizing force is, I think, overly optimistic. The US would love for Sistani to have more of a say now, and would encourage such. It's not the US that's standing in his way, though. It's the fact that Sadr, and others, are more seductive voices in times of tribulation. When Sunnis are blowing Shiites up, Sistani's calls for restraint become less persuasive. I'll go with the guy with the guns, that promises revenge - and delivers. Also, I don't expect "genocide" but that is a rather high bar to set as the threshold for broader Sunni involvement. Keep in mind that there is already much involvement from neighboring Sunni elements. All we are talking about is an increase in the already existing trends, not an ex nihilo development. And if you think that the Sunni population will sit idley by as they get their oil-free, dusty, destitute "homeland" in Western Iraq while the Kurds and Shiites bathe in the black stuff (dancing on the grave of the former Sunni-run nation), I got a bridge to sell you. No, the Sunnis will fight that, and that fight will get ugly. It won't be genocide, because both sides have enough pluck. But it very well could increase the level of involvement of Iraq's neighbors. Hard to imagine it wouldn't actually. To downplay such a risk would be foolhardy. Even if withdrawal is the necessary step at this point (and I don't doubt it), we still need to recognize the attendant risks and seek to mitigate them through careful planning and other proactive measures. I think we've had enough of wishful thinking and strategic negligence over the past 6 years to last us a century. Posted by: Eric Martin at November 30, 2006 07:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
One more point, I don't really understand this claim: We're not really hearing the rhetoric that would be the precursor of..."ethnic cleansing" coming out of Iraq. Not only are we hearing the rhetoric, in spades, but we're seeing it in action. Ethnic cleansing is occurring at an increasingly sizable level. Some of it is voluntary, some of it is forced, some of it is just good old fashioned liquidation of heterodoxy. But I can't understand anyone witnessing the internal displacement of ethnic/sectarian groups in Iraq, and the homogenization of neighborhoods/regions saying that there aren't "precursors" for ethnic cleansing. Unless their point is that we have moved beyond the "precursor" stage to the "active" stage. Posted by: Eric Martin at November 30, 2006 07:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
Nawaf Obaid's scenario of Saudi-funded Sunni radicals fighting Iranian-funded Shiite radicals while oil prices drop sounds almost too good to be true. Posted by: David P. at November 30, 2006 08:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Even if withdrawal is the necessary step at this point (and I don't doubt it), we still need to recognize the attendant risks and seek to mitigate them through careful planning and other proactive measures. It's the Bush administration we're talking about here. We need careful planning? We've needed careful planning for quite awhile now. We need proactive measures? You mean, like attack iran? Be careful what you ask for. Proactive measures from this gang are not at all in our interest.
Can somebody tell me why we shouldn't use veiled threats like this as an opportunity for a "Nixon Goes To China" moment? Specifically, what do we lose by telling the Saudis (publicly or sotto voce) to shove their 8th Century oil-rent-extracting parasitical society -- we're going to work for an accomodation with Tehran? I emphasize, what do WE lose, Americans. How such a realignment might shake out for Israel isn't really our direct concern. Anyway, why shouldn't we take this tack? And by the way, just how credible are threats from Saudi Arabia anyway? I know they're good at buying influence and playing enemies off against each other, but do they command the loyalty or affection or admiration of anyone on the planet? Is their military good for anything other than parades? Posted by: sglover at November 30, 2006 10:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
Did I miss it, or did nobody mention the ubiquitous "let's back the Shiites" idea that's been floating around? Surely, this Saudi shot across the bow is meant to warn us against that course of action. Posted by: Anderson at November 30, 2006 10:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
I am largely with Eric Martin here, although I am doubtful that anything can be done in the face of a gathering storm that will surely and inevitably engulf the area. So perhaps, I am more pessimistic. And while I am certain that I am in the minority, I have long believed that the ascendancy of Iran, initially and perhaps still perceived by the Islamic ME as a counterweight to American influence has made this intra-Islamic clash inevitable. The war in Iraq has accelerated the process, but has not caused it. While I would not rule out initiating diplomacy with Iran (jaw, jaw, jaw), and I think that should have happened a long time ago, I am at a loss to see what Iran could possibly gain sufficient to induce them to cooperate with the Great Satan on anything. The Great One's last letter evidences the same apocalyptic vision that he has frequently expressed and Iran seems to believe that with nuclear weapons, it can become the big boy on the block regardless of the Shia/Sunni population imbalance in the region. The argument that Saddam had no WMDs carries with it the conclusion that as Iran increasingly threatened to became nuclear, its saber rattling would ultimately provoke a hostile response from the adjacent and near Sunni states. Indeed, sooner or later, these Sunni interests will become sufficiently alarmed that they will become much more aggressive in attempting to undercut the growing Iranian influence not only in the countries with large Shia populations, but also among the minority Shia populations in majority Sunni countries - hopefully before Iran has an operational nuke. Also, Iran seems to believe that by taking on the US and Israel, it also gains support among the Sunni street. Iran is not going to moderate at our request or at our urging, and in fact, gains stature by thwarting the wishes of the Great Satan. My buddy Luka's confidence that no ethnic cleansing is in the offing is, in my opinion, misplaced. There will be plenty as ever more destructive arms pour into the hands of those who will use them to settle old scores, gain criminal advantage, and seek revenge for centuries old slights. So, I agree with Eric on this point. There are plenty of reports of internal displacements in Iraq and we are seeing educated, formerly upper middle class Iraqis moving to the West Coast and I understand to Europe as well. I believe that the US military is the only thing that is stopping a full scale war between the Sunni and Shia and just barely. This is not a civil war in the classic sense, but rather a battle between idealogies within Islam along with revenge for tribal slights. The mindset that believes that brutally torturing a completely innocent member of the other sect, as a prelude to murdering that person, and more importantly, as a way of punishing that other sect as a whole, is not going to reform just because the US Military gets out of the way. As I noted, I expect those blood thirsts to enlarge. I think it inevitable that there will be a major intra-Islamic war in the ME. Perhaps the silver lining of the Iraq war will be that the American body politic will not allow us to participate as a major combatant. However, oil is very important and that may change the calculus. While our activities in Iraq may have hastened the coming of this war, it was on the books for a long time and will have very grave consequences both within and without the region.
There aren't going to be any set-piece battles between Iran and Saudi Arabia, unfortunately. The actions the Saudi was alluding to in his essay were, essentially, more of what the Saudis (and Jordanians, for that matter) are doing now on the Q.T.: providing money and volunteers to Sunni Arab armed groups in Iraq. Of course, that won't save Iraq's Sunni Arabs. In hindsight, we really would have done those Sunnis a favor if we took our time and routed them, city by city, in 2003 before taking Baghdad, instead of racing to depose the regime. If we had, they would have had less ability to pursue their current self-destructive course. The smartest thing the Sunnis could do now would be to stop provoking the Shiites, stop attacking Coalition troops and negotiate their issues (sharing oil revenue, changes to the constitution, etc.), while we are there to act as an honest broker. If we pull out before their issues are resolved, the Sunni Arabs are screwed. Without U.S. troops their to hold them back, Shiites will do to the Sunnis what the Romans did to Carthage. Posted by: David P. at December 1, 2006 03:34 AM | Permalink to this comment
I forgot to add that the ultimate irony may be that Israel and the Saudi's will become allies against Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Mentalities that I will never understand. Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at December 1, 2006 03:37 AM | Permalink to this comment
The smartest thing the Sunnis could do now would be to stop provoking the Shiites, stop attacking Coalition troops and negotiate their issues (sharing oil revenue, changes to the constitution, etc.), while we are there to act as an honest broker. If we pull out before their issues are resolved, the Sunni Arabs are screwed. Without U.S. troops their to hold them back, Shiites will do to the Sunnis what the Romans did to Carthage. Is there any conceivable reason to think we would be an "honest broker"? Are you confused that our being a totally fair, honest, unbiased broker between israel and palestine would mean we'd do the same thing in iraq? We decided early on that sunnis supported Saddam and were the bad guys. We've treated them like bad guys ever since. The only reason we'd temporarily stop now is that we're so desperate for allies that we'll take anybody. So we want to patch together whatever temporary coalition we can manage against the coalition that won't have us. Imagine a southern US state in the 1930s. Entirely democrat, republicans had no chance. A group of democrats starts trying for the black vote. Does it mean they're going to actually be nice to blacks? No, it means they're about to lose and they're so desperate for support that they're willing to try asking for support from blacks. It's like that.
I forgot to add that the ultimate irony may be that Israel and the Saudi's will become allies against Iran. No, surely one saudi condition would be that israel must make no attack on anybody important. They can't possibly allow any appearance of an alliance with israel. Even buzzards gag.
Specifically, what do we lose by telling the Saudis (publicly or sotto voce) to shove their 8th Century oil-rent-extracting parasitical society -- we're going to work for an accomodation with Tehran? I emphasize, what do WE lose, Americans. How such a realignment might shake out for Israel isn't really our direct concern. Anyway, why shouldn't we take this tack? Israel wouldn't let us.
Is there any conceivable reason to think we would be an "honest broker"? Sure there is. Sunnis trust Americans more than they do their Shiite countrymen, and they know that the U.S. would like to see the Shiites accomodate reasonable Sunni demands to enable a reconciliation and political solution to the chaos. We decided early on that sunnis supported Saddam and were the bad guys. We've treated them like bad guys ever since. We have gone out of our way to restrain the Shiites and seek "outreach" with the Sunnis. Outreach efforts have been led by our ambassador to Iraq, himself a Sunni. Nevertheless, of all the different groups in Iraq, the Sunni Arabs have been the most destructive and the most self-destructive -- from boycotting the elections for the interim government which wrote the constitution, to endlessly provoking the Shiites into sectarian conflict, etc. They have fomented the chaos, and if they don't work to resolve it, they will be the biggest losers after we leave.
The Great One's last letter evidences the same apocalyptic vision that he has frequently expressed . . . Oh, for crying out loud. A one-state solution for Palestine is not an 'apocalyptic vision'. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 1, 2006 10:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
The smartest thing the Sunnis could do now would be to stop provoking the Shiites . . . The Shi'ites have been determined to take revenge on the Sunnis from the beginning. That the Sunnis could appease the Shi'ites now is a fantasy. Without U.S. troops their to hold them back, Shiites will do to the Sunnis what the Romans did to Carthage. I doubt that. Militias aren't that effective for offensive action, and I don't expect the Iraqi army to succeed where the American army failed.
We have gone out of our way to restrain the Shiites and seek "outreach" with the Sunnis. We went out of our way to throw sunnis out of government jobs like teaching, medical work, etc. We barred all practicing sunni politicians from runninig for office. We agressively "patrolled" sunni areas and shot everybody in sight at each incident. We destroyed Fallujah while we backed off on destroying Najaf. We financed and trained the shia police who turned into death squads. It's an open question whether we trained themk to do that or intended them to do that, but it's clear which way the sunnis mostly believe. We have done nothing to "restrain" those forces. We have conquered sunni cities and lef shia armies behind -- and it isn't our orders that persuaded those shia armies to pack up and leave. If we had our way they'd still be there "maintaining order" without much supervision. We say we want the shia government to agree to long-term solutions that are fair to sunnis, but that doesn't mean much, does it? Like asking southern congressmen in the 1930's to agree to equal rights in principle.... Don't look at what we say, look at what we do. We have backed shias to the hilt, the shias who oppose Sadr. We've killed lots of sunnis. We've encouraged shias to kill sunnis, up to the point that shias who can't stand us are taking over. Now we want sunni allies because we're running out of allies.
At this point, it appears that there is parallel between Bush's tax cuts and the Iraq War. Initially, the tax cuts were "justified" because the economy was so strong we were running a surplus. Suddenly, as soon as it looked like a recession was on the horizon, the exact same package of tax cuts was needed to deal with the recession. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are -- the path never changes -- only the rationale shifts for following the same path. The primary assumption is about what we "owe" the Iraqi people -- this is usually a variant on "a democratic government that respected the ethic and religious differences of the people of Iraq." That, of course, is just so much bullshit -- not only is it virtually impossible to achieve at this juncture, were it possible to achieve in the long term by "military force" the intervening period would be one of continued chaos, death, destruction and suffering for the Iraqi people. What we owe the Iraqi people (besides an apology, and billions upon billions of dollars in reparations and reconstruction funds) is stability that is achieve with the minimum violence possible. That stability cannot be achieved as long as US troops remain in Iraq because we are the source of instability. Bottom line is that we need to get out ASAP, and let the Iranians run things. This will not result in wholesale genocide of Sunnis -- but will likely entail some of the same tactics employed by Turkey against its Kurdish uprising, by Saddam against the Shia uprising, and by the USA at places like Wounded Knee. It will probably mean thousands more killed -- but with Iraqi's dying at a rate of 3000+ a month already in the current chaotic civil war -- the issue of "massacres" is mooted. We are already presiding over a massacre, and its only getting worse. Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 1, 2006 03:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
its dismaying to see those who initially supported the war based on false premises and assumptions now insist that we stay based on premises and assumptions that are just as false.
Even if withdrawal is the necessary step at this point (and I don't doubt it), we still need to recognize the attendant risks and seek to mitigate them through careful planning and other proactive measures. I'm all for careful planning, but it's not obvious to me what sort of planning would mitigate the specific risks under discussion. I'd also like to know more about the 'proactive measures'. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 1, 2006 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
I suspect part of the motivation behind Obaid placing this somewhat alarmist piece in the WaPo . . . I don't understand what is supposed to be alarming in Obaid's statements. A drop in global oil prices would be a welcome development. I don't believe it will happen. I don't follow oil industry news very closely, but last I heard Saudi Arabia didn't have much spare capacity. Kevin Drum, who I hope is better informed than I, says the same. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_11/010313.php Obaid's suggestion that the Saudis can cut oil prices in half at will looks like a huge whopper. As for the Saudis arming and funding Sunni forces in Iraq, haven't analysts long been saying this would be the policy of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states? Why is it bad? Haven't we been told that protecting the Sunnis from the Shi'ites is a major reason for keeping American forces in Iraq? Doesn't knowing the Saudis will take over that responsibility make withdrawal easier? If stability in Iraq isn't achievable in the short run, perhaps the best that can be done is a balance of power. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 1, 2006 07:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
David Tomlin: Ahmadinejad has very frequently and consistently articulated a vision of an approaching apocalyptic climax that will destroy much of the world and result in the appearance of the next prophet. That theme pervades his world view and the world view of many of his followers and was evident from both of his letters. I don't claim expertise in the intricacies of Islamic thought, but that world view with the ability to precipitate a nuclear nightmare, is cause for concern. As for the one state solution, it won't happen until one or the other side effectively destroys the other. If that is a desirable result in your eyes, fine. It is not in mine. Michael
Ahmadinejad has very frequently and consistently articulated a vision of an approaching apocalyptic climax that will destroy much of the world and result in the appearance of the next prophet. That theme pervades his world view and the world view of many of his followers What a coincidence! He shares that with Bush. that world view with the ability to precipitate a nuclear nightmare, is cause for concern. Damn straight. Especially with two of them to play off each other. As for the one state solution, it won't happen until one or the other side effectively destroys the other. Because israelis can't accept it until palestinians get both a much smaller population and a much smaller birthrate. Lots of palestinians are all for it, lots of arabs are all for it, lots of muslims are all for it. A peaceful democratic solution. Israelis and zionists say not until one side has been destroyed. They won't accept a peaceful solution.
That theme pervades his world view and the world view of many of his followers and was evident from both of his letters. michael, the first two phrases could be equally applied to our own president....and I'm sorry, but could you point out the parts of the most recent letter that you claim make Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic obsessions so "evident"? Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 2, 2006 12:27 AM | Permalink to this comment
Boy, what a mess, huh? Seriously though, if we assume that the terminal idiocy velocity has been reached and our clash with Iran is locked into place in the US through the next decade, can anyone think of a reason why we aren't backing the Sunnis in Iraq? I mean, isn't the worst of all imaginable policies this total incoherency - the backing of the Shiites in Iraq who are allied with our assumed regional enemy, Iran, while we attack the local Sunni proxies of the Sunni states we are trying to bandwagon *against* Iran? Does what I described above make any f***ing sense whatsoever? To anyone - hawk, dove, Zionist, Marxist.... ****anyone*****? Posted by: glasnost at December 2, 2006 01:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
I think people are missing the point. True, the Saudi military, despite having a lot of our goodies, does not stand a chance against Iran's Revolutionary Guard. But the Saudis are quite good at arming and financing their guys, and that's what they'll do. Their military is not in any way forward-projecting--but neither is Iran's. They are both defensive. They learned from Mao. So the Saudis will filter money and weapons to Sunni groups in Iraq which include, yes, al Qaeda. And that will be enough to to hold off Iran's ethnic cleaning campaign for awhile. And it will be the mother of all proxy wars. I don't think we realize what is about to happen here. This will be destruction and barbarism at a level not seen in a long time. I only ask, while this unfolds, let us not forget Michael Ledeen's wish that we turn the region into a "cauldron." Congrats, Mike. You got your wish. Posted by: Pat at December 2, 2006 02:22 AM | Permalink to this comment
'michael ledeen, for recognizing that a huge middle east conflict has been brewing for the longest time and your attempts to direct it away from us, may your soul roast in the lower than lowest depths of hell.' Posted by: neill at December 2, 2006 05:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
http://www.claremont.org/writings/joscelyn113006.html The New Know-Nothings Posted December 1, 2006 There is much talk these days about the possibility of the U.S. entering negotiations with Iran and Syria. The thinking goes that both regimes could be enticed into stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq as part of some "grand bargain." Foreign policy gurus ranging from those sitting on the much-heralded Baker-Hamilton Commission to Henry Kissinger to the incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have argued for this course. Unfortunately, their advice is grounded in a dangerous ignorance of our terrorist enemies. There is no better example of this ignorance, which cuts across party lines, than a paper co-authored by Zibigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates in July 2004 for the Council on Foreign Relations titled, "Iran: Time for a New Approach." Amazingly, despite a wealth of historical evidence to the contrary, the authors proclaim that "the official enmity between Washington and Tehran belies the convergence of their interests in specific areas." And although "the strategic imperatives of the United States and Iran are by no means identical…they do intersect in significant ways, particularly with respect to the stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan." The authors come to this conclusion not through any rigorous analysis of Tehran's behavior, but instead simply through wishful thinking. In no way do Tehran's interests and American interests in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world, "converge." Below I have included two pointed examples of just how far off base this thinking is. The prospect for negotiations is not very high since our foreign policy establishment simply does not have a very good understanding of those they seek to negotiate with in the first place. Myth #1: Iran and America both want "stability" in Iraq, therefore we have common interests. The desire for negotiations with Iran (and Iran's terrorist ally, Syria) is driven by a false premise. America's foreign policy elites have concluded that since an unstable Iraq may have ripple effects throughout the region, then Iran wants to quell the violence in favor of long-term stability. The chaos plaguing post-Saddam Iraq is not good for either Tehran or America, the thinking goes, so we should be able to reach common ground in this regard. This makes no sense for a variety of reasons. First, Iran certainly wants long-term stability in Iraq, but only as long as the Iraqi Shiites are inculcated with the same virulent anti-Americanism as that espoused by Tehran's mullahs. That is, Tehran's vision of a "stable" Iraq is not consistent with U.S. interests. Ever since the Khomeini Shiite cult rose to power in 1979, the Iranian regime has been aggressively exporting its anti-American attitude under an Islamist banner. There is a reason "Death to America" is chanted at every pro-Iranian rally. It would please Tehran to no end if the Iraqi Shiites, who account for as much as two-thirds of the Iraqi population, fell under their sway. Tehran's vision of a stable Iraq is one in which, at a minimum, the Iraqi Shiites rule and they are more sympathetic to Tehran's view of the world than America's. That is, Iran wants an Iraq that is in close agreement with the mullahs' "strategic imperatives," which even the authors of Iran: Time for a New Approach concede are not consistent with America's goals. Thus, just because both nations have an interest in stability it does not mean that "stability" is defined in the same terms. Second, Iran is directly fomenting short-term instability in Iraq and killing American-led forces as well as Iraqi civilians. Here, Brzezinski and Gates display a fundamental misunderstanding of the violence in Iraq. They write, "Iran's leadership is pursuing multiple avenues of influence and is exploiting Iraqi instability for its own political gain, Iran nevertheless could play a significant role in promoting a stable, pluralistic government in Baghdad." [Emphasis Added] But Iran is not just "exploiting" the violence for its own gain; Khomeini's heirs are openly fomenting it. It is no secret that a substantial portion of the improvised explosive devices (IED's) killing our soldiers and Iraqi civilians are coming from Iran. The State Department finally conceded as much earlier this year. Many of the American casualties in Iraq today are caused by these very same IED's. Iran is not only feeding the insurgency advanced IED technology, it is also supplying a steady stream of suicide bombers. According to one account in the Italian press earlier this year, the martyrs are even being recruited at the old American embassy in Tehran! It is also not a secret that the Iranians are arming, funding, and training the Shiite militias that are the cause of so much havoc in the first place. Why would anyone, therefore, assume that Iran wants "stability" in Iraq the same way America does? In fact, the more realistic view is that Iran is wagering short-term instability is enough to make American-led forces leave, thereby providing the mullahs with an opportunity to spread their influence and to create an Iraq under their sway. Myth #2: Iran's relationship with al Qaeda needs clarification. Corollary Myth: The Shiites of Iran could not possibly work with the Sunnis of al Qaeda because of ideological differences. Brzezinski and Gates write, "The United States should press Iran to clarify the status of al Qaeda operatives detained by Tehran…" In reality, there is no clarification needed. Iran and Iranian-backed terrorists aided al Qaeda's rise, trained bin Laden's suicide bombers, and have assisted al Qaeda in a variety of ways. The al Qaeda operatives in Iran are not "detained" in any meaningful sense, they are simply being sheltered. It is widely believed that Iran and al Qaeda could not possibly cooperate due to ideological differences. The historical enmity between Shiites and Sunnis, we are told, is insurmountable. Therefore, Iran—the premiere state sponsor of terrorism for decades—and al Qaeda—the vanguard organization of Islamist terrorism—could not work together against their common enemies. This misunderstanding has no doubt influenced the current calls for negotiations with Iran as well as the "analysis" on display in the Brzezinski and Gates paper. In reality, Iran and Iranian terrorist proxies, like Hezbollah, have had an ongoing relationship with the main constituencies of al Qaeda going back decades. For example, both of the main Egyptian terrorist groups that have been folded into al Qaeda's ranks—Ayman al Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group—have been tied to Iran since at least the early 1980's. The Egyptian Government has openly and repeatedly accused both Iran and bin Laden of sponsoring their activities inside Egypt. Iran also played an instrumental role in managing al Qaeda's transition from an Afghani insurgency group to an international terrorist empire. Among others, the relationship between Iran and bin Laden was managed by Imad Mugniyah. Mugniyah, the head of Hezbollah's international terrorist wing, has been Tehran's chief terrorist since the early 1980's. He has orchestrated countless attacks against Americans, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon. Bin Laden asked Mugniyah for help in modeling the new al Qaeda after Hezbollah in the early 1990's, during al Qaeda's sojourn in Sudan. Iran and Mugniyah obliged. Mugniyah oversaw the training of al Qaeda operatives in Sudan, Lebanon and Iran. It was Mugniyah that inspired al Qaeda to pursue simultaneous, coordinated suicide attacks against multiple targets. In fact, Mugniyah and his lieutenants have been tied to a variety of al Qaeda attacks. According to Bob Baer in See No Evil, the CIA learned in 1995 that al Qaeda operatives have received assistance from Mugniyah en route to attacks. There is evidence that al Qaeda and Mugniyah's Hezbollah cooperated on the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. The 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were executed by terrorists trained by Hezbollah. And the 9-11 Commission even found that Mugniyah just happened to have traveled on the same flights as several of the so-called "muscle hijackers" just months prior to their day of terror. The 9-11 Commission also found that ideological differences did not preclude cooperation. To tie this all back to the claim that Iran's detention of al Qaeda operatives requires clarification, it is important to note that one of the al Qaeda terrorists trained by Mugniyah was Saif al Adel. Al Adel is one of the top al Qaeda terrorists on the planet at this point. He has been tied to both the 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings and the 9-11 attacks. It is has been reported that he even trained many of the 9-11 hijackers. Al Adel currently resides somewhere in or around Tehran. He ordered up a round of attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2003 from his location there. Despite the fact that al Adel has worked with Iranian-backed terrorists for more than a decade and fled, along with dozens of his comrades, to Iran shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, our foreign policy gurus think that his status in Iran needs further clarification. Here is the bottom line: the Foreign Policy Establishment that is calling for negotiations with Iran does not have a good (or any?) understanding of Iranian behavior. This is particularly troubling because Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorist enemies around the world. Is it reasonable to think that these folks could successfully carry on negotiations with the mullahs? I wouldn't bet on it. Posted by: neill at December 2, 2006 06:28 AM | Permalink to this comment
people are sick of what you stand for, in quite challenging circumstances, so we run on standing for..... basically NOTHING.....and WIN!!!!!! and for our opening statement........ Posted by: neill at December 2, 2006 07:41 AM | Permalink to this comment
michael ledeen, for recognizing that a huge middle east conflict has been brewing for the longest time and your attempts to direct it away from us . . . How does putting an American army in the middle of it 'direct it away from us'? Posted by: David Tomlin at December 2, 2006 09:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
David Tomlin, you're asking for reasoned argument from a troll.
Re Ledeen, this little article was just linked from a comment on 'Aqoul. I suggest you read it, to look into his soul. Posted by: Klaus at December 2, 2006 02:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
As for the one state solution, it won't happen until one or the other side effectively destroys the other. South African apartheid was ended peacefully. The Zionist version may one day end similarly. You are of course entitled to your own opinion of the matter. You are not entitled to assume this opinion is universally shared, and to interpret the statements of others in the light of such an assumption. To make representations about the statements of others on such a basis, is simply dishonest. If that is a desirable result in your eyes, fine. I said 'A one-state solution for Palestine is not an "apocalyptic vision."' To read that as saying such a solution is 'desirable' would be an extreme example of the false dilemma fallacy. Either a one-state or a two-state solution would be preferable to the status quo. At this point it's not clear to me that either is preferable to the other. There are points for and against both. At present the international consensus is for a two-state solution. Ahmadinejad would like to change that consensus to favor a one-state solution. I don't know if he is right or not, but I don't think his position is at all unreasonable.
This is why the Sunnis do not see us as an honest broker. Death Squads and the Salvador Option [...] Despite Rumsfeld's tepid denials, enthusiasm for using El Salvador as a precedent for Iraq runs deep in Republican foreign policy circles. Prominent hawks close to the administration have publicly touted the benefits of this approach. Max Boot, of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that U.S. policy in Central America was "tremendously successful" at putting down local insurgencies and that "everyone agrees" it is the model to follow. And Eliot Cohen, director of the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins— and whose last book was reported to be bedtime reading for President Bush— has said, "We did counterinsurgency very well in Salvador."
DT: " I said 'A one-state solution for Palestine is not an "apocalyptic vision."' To read that as saying such a solution is 'desirable' would be an extreme example of the false dilemma fallacy. Either a one-state or a two-state solution would be preferable to the status quo. At this point it's not clear to me that either is preferable to the other. There are points for and against both. At present the international consensus is for a two-state solution. Ahmadinejad would like to change that consensus to favor a one-state solution. I don't know if he is right or not, but I don't think his position is at all unreasonable." DT, what is the most likely "road map" you envision to this not at all unreasonable one-state solution? Posted by: neill at December 2, 2006 05:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
I interpreted Nawaf Obaid's essay in the Washington Post as an open letter to Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate, who will be debating the next step in the Iraq War when they reconvene next year. Unfortunately, given the results of the midterm elections, the leaders of the Democratic majority have been given their marching orders by the American electorate: President Bush has failed the test of executive leadership in Iraq, and now we pin our collective hopes upon the Democrats to show the nation a way out of this foreign policy debacle. So I doubt that Pelosi, Murtha, Kucinich, et al will be swayed by this veiled threat from Obaid. Domestic politics now command the debate over the Iraq War rather than sober, analytical reasoning from the elder statesmen of both parties within the foreign policy community in America.
george, I think the mid-terms were in reality more of a rebuke to Republicans than a withdrawal mandate for Democrats, regardless of whether the latter perceive it as such or not. and congress is not the Commander-in-Chief, who I don't anticipate will order a withdrawal -- in any of the various terminology. that said, I agree that the piece is addressed to congress. Posted by: neill at December 2, 2006 06:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
the House was won with Rahm Emanuel's centrist candidates, and when it comes down to numbers doesn't the most powerful voice on Iraq in the Senate belong to Lieberman? Posted by: neill at December 2, 2006 06:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
DT, what is the most likely "road map" you envision to this not at all unreasonable one-state solution? I'm not sure what you mean. The procedure is simple. There would be a referendum on the question, in which Israeli Jews and Palestinians, including the diaspora, would participate. Of course that won't happen until Israeli Jews have a major attitude adjustment. I don't know how that would happen, but it did for white South Africans. One thing that might help would be for the U.S. to eliminate or greatly reduce its financial aid to Israel. There is anyway no reason for such aid. Israel is not a poor country, and strategically it is more of a liability than an asset. Of course that won't happen without some major changes in the U.S. A one-state solution is obviously a long-term prospect. I don't think that is such a drawback, because I'm not as optimistic as some about the near-term prospects for a two-state solution.
"RE: the motivation behind Obaid placing this somewhat alarmist piece in the WaPo. . . ": The Hadley memo shows that many in the administration are advsiing that we "take sides"--w/ the Shia. Obaid is letting us know we'd better not: that (Sunni) Saudi Arabia will be in w/ both feet if we do. It's a public reprimand in its way more telling than Maliki's standing Duibya up at dinner. Posted by: helmling at December 2, 2006 07:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
DT, You think it reasonable for the Israelis to hold a Palestine-wide referendum, to include their bitterest enemies, on whether to form one state in which Jews would be a distinct minority? If recollection serves, Israel was formed as a reaction to centuries of the bitterest persecution of Jews in many different countries. As an aside, do you think Ahmedinejad's vision of Israel's ultimate fate is not an Apoclyptic one? Posted by: neill at December 2, 2006 10:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
DT: There are about 1 million Arabs living in Israel with all of the rights of citizens including the right to vote and the right to representation in the Knesset. They do not have the obligation of military service. The Israeli Arabs seem to have found some semblance of harmony between Islam and democracy. These Arabs didn't just appear out of nowhere. They have lived in Israel since the country came into existence and for centuries prior. They have all of the rights of citizens including health care, welfare, educational opportunities and on and on. Whether they take advantage of all those rights is another matter. To compare their lot to the South African Blacks under apartheid is absurd. The Israeli schools don't teach that the Palestinians are dogs and monkeys, that they drink the blood of Jewish children, or any of the mirror images of the blood libels that are routinely taught in the Palestinian schools. Hatred of Jews is deeply embedded in the Arab and Palestinian psyche. It has been taught for centuries. The Arab countries were allies of the Nazi’s during WWII and the grand mufti of Egypt was a Nazi puppet, all because of Hitler’s attitudes toward Jews. That hatred is cultivated daily and extends not just to the Israelis but to all Jews living anywhere in the world. The idea that a peaceful, viable two state solution or a one state solution along the lines you seem to advocate could come about in such an environment is a pipe dream. And your methodology for the plebiscite is even more so. You would have every Palestinian living anywhere in the world eligible to vote. How about the millions of Jews and their descendents who were driven out of the Arab countries, are they entitled to vote? And, how about all of the Israelis that have left Israel and live in the US and elsewhere? These are not just complexities, they go to the very heart of the legitimacy of any result. I go back to my original comment. There will either be a two state solution, or one side will destroy the other and a de facto one state solution will result. What the boundaries will be is an entirely different matter. Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at December 3, 2006 01:32 AM | Permalink to this comment
And I take Obaid's last sentence in his essay as a serious threat rather than the usual Arab bravado: "To be sure Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks - it could spark a regional war. So be it. The consequences of inaction are far worse." Obaid's essay ia an acknowledgement to the public that the Saudis feel that their backs have been pushed against the wall, and they can no longer avoid trying to rescue their Sunni brethren from potential Shiite ethnic cleansing. sorry, but like I said at the very beginning of the thread, i call bullshit. The Saudi's simply are not in a position today to take a more "muscular" role in the region (that is not to say that it might in the future -- but demographics argue against a "muscular" Saudi leadership under the royal family --- Saudi Arabia, under an Islamic fundamentalist government, could do so, but I doubt that is what Obaid is talking about.) If there is a "rational" interpretation for this letter, its as a message to Iran, to wit: "We both know that the US is leaving. We both know that once that happens, a regional solution is possible that is satisfactory to both of us. Just don't get too ambitious, and you can have what you want." The Saudi Royals are not dumb. They know that an Iraq that is allied with Iran is far less of a threat to their continued leadership of Saudi Arabia than would be an Iraq that contained a significant number of radical Sunni fundamentalists. Nobody in the region wants western Iraq to become a haven for al Qaeda types... not Syria, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia---NOBODY. Support for the Sunni fundamentalists would be like the Saudi royals signing their own death warrants -- the only "reasonable" solution to the probem is to keep US troops out of Saudi Arabia, and have the Saudi's to support the Baathist's through Syria. A deal can be worked out between Iran and Syria that allows the virtual annexation of Anbar by Syria (and would include Kirkuk and its oil fields as an incentive/sweetener.) The Kurds will raise a fuss, but will be presented with a fait accompli --- surroiunded by Turkey, Iran, and Syria, the Kurds would have no choice but to cede Kirkuk in exchange for the creation of an "autonomous" region inside an Iraq that was being run as an Islamic republic. Once US troops are out of the region, Iraqis of all stripes are going to want to get the al Qaeda affiliated "foreign fighters" out of their country ASAP.... the question is what happens to them? The countries they came from don't want them back to forment trouble in their own nations -- and thus I suspect that most of these foreign fighter will be "disappeared" in some fashion....
the House was won with Rahm Emanuel's centrist candidates, and when it comes down to numbers doesn't the most powerful voice on Iraq in the Senate belong to Lieberman? you watch too much fox news. In fact, Emanuel's strategy was a failure....of the 20 GOP seats that he targeted back in April, only 9 turned over. Meanwhile, the netroots/grassroots and Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was turning otherwise ignored candidates into winners in 20 more GOP districts. www.glcq.com/rahm2.htm Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 3, 2006 04:29 AM | Permalink to this comment
You think it reasonable for the Israelis to hold a Palestine-wide referendum, to include their bitterest enemies, on whether to form one state in which Jews would be a distinct minority? Do the Palestinians hate Israelis more than black South Africans hated white South Africans? Perhaps they do. Perhaps they have more cause to. If recollection serves, Israel was formed as a reaction to centuries of the bitterest persecution of Jews in many different countries. Of religious minorities in Christian countries, Jews were the least harshly treated. That's why they're still around. Islamic countries generally treated Jews (and Christians) less harshly than Christian countries treated Jews. I recommend The Jews of Islam, a short book by Bernard Lewis, for information on this subject. As you may know, Lewis's views on contemporary politics are pro-Israeli. I don't agree that any of this is relevant. It isn't right for modern peoples to mistreat one another in revenge for historic wrongs, no matter how 'bitter'. As an aside, do you think Ahmedinejad's vision of Israel's ultimate fate is not an Apocalyptic one? It obviously is not.
DT, you like most Arabs, prefer not to answer questions directly. Because to do so doesn't further YOUR agenda. This is the precise point where "policy", because of the failure of language, morphs into warfare. Or in simpler terms: what you say is BULLSHIT.
"I don't agree that any of this is relevant. It isn't right for modern peoples to mistreat one another in revenge for historic wrongs, no matter how 'bitter'." What galaxy do you come from, DT?
Fascinating though it is to think about the israel/palestine slow-motion catastrophe, don't we all agree that nothing important will happen to change things there for the next 2 years? Bush won't do anything to make a change. Israel won't do anything. Nobody else can do anything. So we'll have a status quo that slowly gets worse for all involved, but particularly for palestinians. If there's any change in the next 5 years, iit would come from the creation of a peace movement in israel. Nothing else can make a change, unless it's nuclear weapons by some arab nation -- and that would lead only to a military stalemate supposing the israelis didn't do an immediate strike. I can't be sure there won't be an effective peace movement in israel within 5 years, but it looks unlikely and I don't see much that americans could do to influence it. And surely we all agree none of us can see ahead more than 5 years about such things. So what good does it do to argue about it? Whatever we say, nothing will happen except a slow slide toward destruction of the palestinians at great expense to israel. Why even discuss it? We can argue about who's justified and who's unjustified in their disgusting behavior. We can argue about what somebody ought to do. None of it will make any difference at all. If you have any useful suggestions, find a way to suggest them to israelis. While there might be some israelis who read this blog, this is an unlikely place to make a difference.
the previous is 'moral equivalence' defined. my dick isn't up. my dick isn't down. i'm not even sure i have a dick. but if i do, whatever it's doing has nothing to do with me. Posted by: neill at December 3, 2006 10:23 AM | Permalink to this comment
Ahmadinejad has very frequently and consistently articulated a vision of an approaching apocalyptic climax that will destroy much of the world and result in the appearance of the next prophet. That theme pervades his world view and the world view of many of his followers and was evident from both of his letters. President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, May 11, 2006: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1772198,00.html President Ahmadinejad's open letter to 'the American people', Nov. 29, 2006 http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/ Mr. Pecherer lies brazenly. My first comment on this matter was based on having read the first letter some time ago, and some of Ahmadinejad's other speeches and writings. At that time I hadn't read the second letter. I have since read the second letter and re-read the first one. I was surprised to see that Mr. Pecherer's claims are not even plausible misinterpretations or distortions. They are outright inventions. Nowhere in these texts is there to be found anything resembling mention of 'an approaching apocalyptic climax', nor of any event that will 'destroy much of the world'. The letters in fact contain more pleasant predictions. From the first: 'We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems.' From the second: 'I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.' Posted by: David Tomlin at December 3, 2006 10:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
"I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world." That is, OUR definition of justice and spirituality. If not, we'll cut your throat. (it's not as if there isn't ample prior evidence for this kind nicely-phrased throwing-down of the gtauntlet...if you're willing to look for it) Posted by: neill at December 3, 2006 10:40 AM | Permalink to this comment
Do you know many Arabs named 'David'? I'm a Tennessee cracker of, I think, mostly Scots-Irish ancestry. My family has no Arab connections that I know of. My most exotic relatives are Italian Catholics. . . . prefer not to answer questions directly. Oh, please. My position is clear, and I've made an argument for it. That is what you seem to prefer avoiding. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 3, 2006 11:01 AM | Permalink to this comment
and, it doesn't need to be mentioned, the big A is referring to Liberal acceptance of His definition of Justice and Spirituality, right? Let's be clear, he's talking about His definition -- not yours. Posted by: neill at December 3, 2006 11:08 AM | Permalink to this comment
(it's not as if there isn't ample prior evidence for this kind nicely-phrased throwing-down of the gtauntlet...if you're willing to look for it) A nicely-phrase excuse for you not to point it out. I was responding to this statement by Michael Pecherer: Ahmadinejad has very frequently and consistently articulated a vision of an approaching apocalyptic climax that will destroy much of the world and result in the appearance of the next prophet. That theme pervades his world view and the world view of many of his followers and was evident from both of his letters. The claim was that the evidence was to be found in the letters, not elsewhere. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 3, 2006 11:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
the latest diversion....the family tree. how quaint! Posted by: neill at December 3, 2006 11:13 AM | Permalink to this comment
prove to me, in the face of all A's public statements on the matter, that he doesn't believe that Israel and America won't soon be destroyed. I know you can. Posted by: neill at December 3, 2006 11:25 AM | Permalink to this comment
the latest diversion....the family tree. Diversion? I was responding to your insinuation that I must be an Arab, presumably because only an interested party would hold the opinions I do. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 3, 2006 12:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
prove to me, in the face of all A's public statements on the matter, that he doesn't believe that Israel and America won't soon be destroyed. Why should I prove that, since I haven't claimed it? I think Ahmadinejad has made some statements about the possibility of America ceasing to exist. I assume he meant that in the sense in which the other superpower, the Soviet Union, no longer exists. Of course this is fantastic to anyone who knows much about the U.S., but it seems some people in the Middle East think it is possible. You want to play on the ambiguity in the 'destruction' of a political entity, and the people who constitute that entity. Political entities, such as the Soviet Union, or East Germany, sometimes cease to exist with little or no violence or physical destruction. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 3, 2006 12:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
There are about 1 million Arabs living in Israel with all of the rights of citizens . . . This is weasel-worded. Israel differentiates its residents by 'nationality' as well as citizenship. Thus 'all of the rights of citizens' does not mean equal rights. 'Non-Jews' do not have equal rights with Jews. To compare their lot to the South African Blacks under apartheid is absurd. The Arabs who live in Israel are better off than those in the territories and many of those in the diaspora. There is a parallel with South Africa, where those designated 'Coloreds' had more rights than Blacks. The Arabs of Israel are probably better off that than the 'Coloreds' of apartheid South Africa. Those in the territories may be worse off than the Blacks were. These comparisons are irrelevant. The Israeli system marginalizes 'non-Jews' and when possible excludes them. It is a species of the same genus as South African apartheid ('apartness'). In the U.S., mainstream liberals and conservatives support Israel. That seems to be part of the definition of 'mainstream'. When apartheid existed in South Africa, some American conservatives had more sympathy for the dilemma facing the white South Africans than did American liberals. These conservatives had no difficulty recognizing the parallels between Israel and South Africa. American liberals, who supported Israel and condemned South Africa, rejected the comparison indignantly, just as you do. It is disingenuous for you to focus on the Arabs of Israel, when those of the territories and the diaspora are so obviously relevant to the discussion.
David, you are responding to a troll about israel. Do it if you want, but can you think of an action more futile? If you argue with a wall instead at least you won't be encouraging the wall.
David, you are responding to a troll about israel. Do it if you want, but can you think of an action more futile? I don't think it's futile. Whether Neill or Michael are trolls are not, the views they express are not marginal. They are closer to being conventional wisdom. That makes them worth responding to. OTOH, extended discussion of these matters is probably off topic for the thread. In the interests of not letting the thread be hijacked, I'll leave them the last word for now. Posted by: David Tomlin at December 3, 2006 04:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
JJ. Thomas, I have been reading your posts on this site for a very long time. Sometimes I have agreed, sometimes I have felt you were ill informed and sometimes I have thought that they were pure nonsense. Your posts are generally well written. I post sparingly and only when I feel, rightly or wrongly, that I am informed on the subject. I have always refrained from hurling insults or engaging in condescension. Luka, with whom I rarely agree, and I have often had constructive exchanges on various subjects without descending into in personam muck. I put my name on my posts and I am the only person with that name in the world. I have nothing to hide. I have had a distinguished career as an attorney, a judge and I am now retired. I have handled or judged thousands of disputes with an effective resolution percentage that approaches 98%. My politics are moderate. I am not a Zionist. I have spent significant time working in the Muslim countries of Southeast Asia (Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia) and have had extensive dealings and friendships with Muslims there. I have seen the effects of war and the bodies in the streets. I have visited Israel and have traveled in the West Bank. I have no deep seated hostility toward Islam. I believe in free speech and freedom of religion and live and let live. I am not doctrinaire. Ultimately, I am a pragmatist and I believe that taking the world as it is rather than what it might be in some idealistic perspective is a more likely path to peace. I believe in individual responsibility and I don't believe in ghosts. I feel strongly that time moves in only one direction and that riding on long dead horses is ultimately an exercise in self delusion. I believe in the sanctity of life and the equality of men and women. I believe that the transmission of hate from one generation to the next is the ultimate sin. I believe that grudges are a form of self hatred. I am a parent of successful, responsible and ultimately happy children. If the foregoing makes me a troll, so be it. Michael
Neill, I basically agree with your comment on my post about the Nawaf Obaid's essay in the Washington Post. But I think one of the reasons he wrote and published his commentary in an open forum such as the op-ed section of the newspaper rather than trying to circulate it privately among the concerned members of the foreign policy community in the US is that he wanted to have it in the historical record that the Saudis will provide aid and comfort to their Sunni brethren in Iraq. He wanted to bypass the political stagnation that has set in with the panic over the debacle in Iraq. Of course, either the op-ed section of the Washington Post or the New York TImes is the perfect venue for his declaration of a Saudi intervention in Iraq.
JJ... michael's not a troll. Sure, he's usually wrong ;) , but that doesn't make him a troll. (btw michael, still waiting for you to point out what it is about the Ahmadinejad letter that (paraphrase) "articulates an apocalyptic vision".) Neill on the other hand....well, I'm convinced he's actually a spoof, not a troll per se. The problem is that (except when Reynolds or Hewitt or someone wingnut bloggers decides to send their idiot readership over here for some reason) the commenters here are a pretty intelligent bunch, and don't pay much mind to those who come here and say nothing but ridiculous things. Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 3, 2006 07:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
Michael, I apologise. I hope you will forgive me. I thought it would be completely obvious that I was referring to Neill and not to you. David had been responding unproductively to Neill, and I accidentally left my browser running and unrefreshed for some time before I responded. You posted in the meantime, and so did David, and so it would look like I was responding to that last exchange that I didn't see. I would not have intentionally left any ambiguityk there. In more reasonable times it would have made sense for you and everyone to give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I wasn't talking about you. But I can see how you would complain that the shoe obviously doesn't fit, under the circumstances. Again, I apologise for appearing to say something that I had no intention of saying at all. No, of course I don't regard you as a troll. Though I tend to believe that the only useful thing we can say about israel/palestine just now is that the issue will not be resulved in toe foreseeable future no matter how inconvenient it is for us that it not.
A regional war would be far worse than one contained within Iraq. If Saudi Arabia gets involved, others will follow. Posted by: PoliticalCritic at December 3, 2006 10:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
J. Thomas, Apology accepted. I agree with you that the Israel/Palestine problem is intractable or else it would have been solved. It saddens me greatly because I shudder thinking what it must be like to live with the fear that at any moment another shot or another explosion will take someone near you. I wish I could give them all a "time out." A time to take a deep breath and think about what really is important. I suspect that if it were safe to say so, every one of them would like a roof over the head, food on the table, and a better life for their children. Why should I presume that they are different than me? Luka, my good friend, I hope someday we have a beer together. I almost feel like I have known you for years. I will respond shortly, but I am buried in an article with a tomorrow deadline. I wanted to second George Hoffman's comment that the electorate is weary of the Beltway contention. I have long believed that this contention, which has all but become institutionalized, is the greatest threat to our system since it celebrates the extremes and ignores the middle. I do think, however, that when we keep these blogs civilized and we express across a broad spectrum of ideas, some of this will bubble up to the powers that be and perhaps the lights will go on. I don't post often, but I read this and other blogs regularly and am very grateful for their existence. As a final matter, whether Michigan plays in the championship or in the Rose Bowl, Go Blue!!
Getting well off topic (hey greg, that means you have to come up with something new to discuss!!!!)... I wanted to second George Hoffman's comment that the electorate is weary of the Beltway contention. I have long believed that this contention, which has all but become institutionalized, is the greatest threat to our system since it celebrates the extremes and ignores the middle. At this point, IMHO, the question of whether "bipartisanship" can be achieved rests in the hands of the GOP --- this election was a referendum on the Bush administration, and Bush lost it spectacularly. The question is whether the rest of the GOP can make the adjustment from acting from strength in a wholly partisan fashion to humbling themselves sufficiently to assuage the legitimate anger of Democrats who have been treated like shit for the last six years. That being said, while working together for the good of the nation would be great....but I think that for at least the next two years its highly unlikely to happen for a number of reasons.... 1) Payback. Its a bitch. And after six years of incredibly partisan control of congress by the GOP....well, lets just say The Bitch is Back. 2) Political gerrymandering. Its resulted in a House of representatives with a majority of members who can safely pander to their respective bases with "extremist" positions on both sides of the aisle. 3)) Bush and the 2008 elections. Bush himself is a polarizing figure who has spat in the face of bi-partisanship even after the 2006 results. And because Bush cannot run for re-election, and their is no "heir apparent", and with the GOP in the minority, there will be no effective GOP leadership in Congress that can negotiate effectively with the Democrats -- especially given the fact that everyone is looking to "position" themselves for maximum advantage in 2008. 4) Cable news. The last thing that the cable networks -- which now dominate the decisions regarding what is "news" --- is bipartisanship. These networks thrive on conflict --- and if there isn't a conflict, they will create an artificial one and feature the most partisan "spokespeople" in their coverage. The real tragedy, IMHO, is that after 9-11 this nation (not to mention the whole world) was at a point where everyone wanted to work together to achieve progress and solve problems. Bush (with the acquiesence, and often the participation of the rest of the GOP) took advantage of this in a manner which is unforgiveable. (Perhaps the classic example is how the GOP went after Max Cleland.) I do see some hope in the post 2008 period. In 2006, the progressive movement targeted some of the most radical right-wingers in Congress by supporting "pragmatic progressives" with some success. And Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy may result in more Democrats being elected in traditionally "conservative" states where "getting it done" is more important than partisanship (I'd say the sweep in New Hampshire is a perfect example -- "the West" is ripe for Democratic candidates who are "pragmatic progressives). Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 4, 2006 01:40 AM | Permalink to this comment
george, thanks for your thoughtful response. I too hope we as a nation can join together in terms of our long-term interests, instead of more pissing contests for short-term political gain. I'm not optimistic about it though. The Dems do hold the majority and they do feel aggrieved. There is a sharp divide about the nature of the threat we face, and and consequently the most effective manner in which to confront it. It's my belief that America has never been in greater peril than it's in today. Perhaps consensus on that will only come after it's too late. Posted by: neill at December 4, 2006 03:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
About George Hoffman's comment as to the weariness of the electorate with "...all the fighting going on within the Beltway": I wonder if this is really true. If by the electorate we mean all eligible voters, we ought to consider that rates of participation even in Presidential elections have been relatively constant at just over 50% of eligibles for many years now. Turnout in non-Presidential elections is much lower (in both, turnout varies widely by state and locality). Decline in turnout long predates George Bush, or even Bill Clinton; from this point of view the electorate may well be weary, but it is a weariness without direct or obvious consequences. On the other hand people who do vote generally do so in election after election. Among these people are clearly many who are distressed at partisan warfare in Washington. However, they include a number of people who wonder why partisans in Washington can't stop their infighting long enough to do something about all the damned illegals flooding over the Mexican border, or to slash health care costs, or to lower the price of gasoline. In other words, there are many people who attribute to partisan warfare the inability of the government to do things that either cannot be done, cannot be done easily, or cannot be done in deference to very large numbers of Americans who do not wish them done. Their weariness, to the extent it does exist, may well be sincere, but it is also misguided. Personally I would like to believe that a groundswell of revulsion against the permanent campaign is building and about to break forth. Do I, in fact, believe this? Not really. What I believe is that there are a lot of Americans dissatified with the current leadership in Washington -- not an untrue statement at any time in our history -- of whom some believe that throwing the Republicans out and bringing the Democrats in is the answer, and many others who want something other than the leadership we have but aren't sure what. Posted by: Zathras at December 4, 2006 03:53 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Personally I would like to believe that a groundswell of revulsion against the permanent campaign is building and about to break forth." It's all about the money. The permanent campaign is made possible by money, and made necessary by the need for more money, in order to buy lots of ad time on TV, in order to book slots long in advance to make sure the other side doesn't get those slots, in order to make sure your side's ads are the only ones voters see, which in turn is necessary because TV ads are how a sizeable percentage of voters get most or all of their information about the candidates. It's all about the money. How to fix that? Limit campaign spending to public financing only, spent by official campaign committees and national Party organizations only. Period. Full stop. No more PACs - for anyone: not unions, not corporations, not issue advocacy groups, not industry advocacy groups. No more 527s or 503s or whatever the latest dodge is. No more Pioneer Groups, or Friends of, or Concerned Citizens for. Cap how much can be spent. One cap for the primaries, another for the general. If a candidate emerges from the nominating convention with money left over, the money is divided equally among ALL the candidates still standing. (That's incentive to make sure there's nothing left over.)
Neill: You think it reasonable for the Israelis to hold a Palestine-wide referendum, to include their bitterest enemies, on whether to form one state in which Jews would be a distinct minority? DT: Do the Palestinians hate Israelis more than black South Africans hated white South Africans? Perhaps they do. Perhaps they have more cause to.
Is his response a serious answer to that question?
Casey, I agree with some of your ideas, especially re PACs, but I think it's important for our political participation to allow individuals to support the ideas and candidates they like with their own funds. A candidate that can raise more money to fund his/her candidacy because of a genuinely popular platform ought to be encouraged to do so. Just cap it at a few hundred bucks a head. Posted by: neill at December 4, 2006 05:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
Zathras, |