Why the Kurds matter

It looks like the attacks on Turkish tourist spots may have been the work of a Kurdish group, at least one such group has claimed responsibility. This isn't really anything new for the Turks, and some say that it may have been a Kurdish group that assassinated Swedish prime minister Olaf Palme in Stockholm way back in 1987 (for reasons unknown). So there have always been a few dangerously discontented Kurds floating around. What I think is different now is that we are only months away from having the US and Coalition partners finally admit to what was clear to perceptive newshounds early on after the fall of Saddam, i.e. that if there is to be both peace and democracy on the territory of what is now Iraq, then that place has to be partitioned into three states. And if it is to be partioned into three states, then one of those states will have to be a majority Kurdish state in what is now northern Iraq. And that is something that not only the Turks will vigorously oppose, but maybe even also Iran. Turkey and Iran are the other two countries with Kurdish populations, and those populations would find themselves living in bits of Turkey and Iran that would border the news Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Now for some reason Turkey, Iran, and the former Iraq all have historically been in the business of denying Kurds their own automony or territory. For example, right now Saddam is on trial partly for supposedly gassing "his own people". However, we should note that when we say that Saddam gassed his own people, we are speaking incorrectly, because what he did in fact was to gas his own Iraqi Kurds. Saddam's "own people" are all Sunni Arabs from specific tribes of a specific area of Iraq that has almost no Kurds.

Anyway, why it is that nobody wants the Kurds to get their own country, I don't know. You'd think that if a people were that much trouble to hold onto, that a reasonable existing country would want to let them go. On the other hand if you look at countries like India and China that seem willing to subject themselves to all manner of trouble just to keep a hold of some worthless, in-arable, mineral-poor piece of rock out on the perify of the country, well then you see what they're up against over there where the Kurds live.

So what we will have, when the partitioning begins, is a situation where the US will have to either alienate the Turks or the Kurds. My guess is that the US will choose to alienate the Kurds, just like everyone else does, and then we will have yet another group of pissed-off mountain folk vilifying the US and vowing never to forget, etc., etc.

Iran, North Korea, Australia... Whatever! Just Nuke 'Em All!

The video below has been out and about the Web for a while now, but, as these things tend to, I received an email today, as if it was new, with it as an attachment.

In all fairness, you could find people in any country as clueless as the Americans in this video. But what's more alarming is the impression that these people seem to nonchalantly consider the notion of the U.S. invading another country as no more a consideration than if they had been asked about their preference between Pepsi and Coca-Cola. When invited to point out the nations they feel we should invade, the very fact they can be fooled into believing Australia is Iran, or North Korea speaks volumes about the lack of global geographical knowledge in this country, and our cavalier and simpleton approach to world affairs. This is how the rest of the world views this country.

When I first came to the U.S. I was aghast that the solution by fellow students to every world problem was the same: Nuke Libya! Nuke Iran! Not much seems to have changed in all those years, and our world view is still as ignorant.

We should be ashamed of that and be looking to do something about it. It is a question of our education system, and it a matter of how we interact with the rest of the world. Do we solve all world problems with aggression and wars, or do we participate as partners with the world community to put our considerable military strength and economic power to better uses?

If not, Australia won't be surprised when our bombs start pounding Sydney.

Cross-posted at On The Road To 2008.

The Awful Truth

Now that people are getting back to the truth, the awful truth is that perhaps Donald Rumsfeld is not as bad as he seems at running the Pentagon and that maybe the strategy he followed would have been more effective if he had an army to work with.

When the US, in peacetime, had soldiers stationed in Germany to fight off the Russian hordes only 16 years ago, there were 500,000 of them. Today we don't seem to have 500,000 troops and are resorting to the use of reserves and the National Guard to get the number we have (which seems to vary depending on the press conference or release) from 165,000 to 135,000.

The awful truth is that we don't have an army anymore. Moreover, Israel doesn't either. Both have airplanes. Rockets. Missiles. And atomic bombs. Of course none of the latter are able to defeat the kinds of foes that exist in Iraq and Lebanon. Since we can't use our armies we use our airplanes and cruise missiles. When they don't work will we have to resort to the A Bomb? I have a Jewish friend who said if push comes to shove Israel will not fail to use it. What an awful truth.

First they came for the.......

This is from the archive section of the website of the newspaper, "The Guardian":

Communists to be interned in Dachau

March 21 1933

(Reprinted) Tuesday March 21, 2006

The Guardian

The President of the Munich police has informed the press that the first concentration camp holding 5,000 political prisoners is to be organised within the next few days near the town of Dachau in Bavaria.

Here, he said, Communists, "Marxists" and Reichsbanner leaders who endangered the security of the State would be kept in custody. It was impossible to find room for them in the State prisons, nor was it possible to release them. Experience had shown, he said, that the moment they were released, they started their agitation again.

If the safety and order of the State were to be guaranteed, measures were inevitable, and they would be carried out without any petty consideration. This is the first clear statement hitherto made regarding concentration camps. The extent of the terror may be measured from the size of this Bavarian camp which - one may gather - will be only one of many. The Munich police president's statement leaves no more doubt whatever that the Socialists and Republicans will be given exactly the same sort of "civic education" as the Communists.

It is widely held that the drive against the Socialists will reach its height after the adjournment of the Reichstag next week.

Absolute power for Hitler: The Cabinet at its meeting this afternoon decided on the text of the Enabling Bill which it will submit to the Reichstag. If this bill is passed, the Hitler Government will be endowed with absolute dictatorial powers. The Act will enable the Cabinet to legislate and to make laws even if these "mark a deviation from the Constitution", except that the Reichstag and the Reichsrat must not he abolished. But as these will be put out of action for four years, this provision will not inconvenience the Government, which will even have full powers at the end of four years to alter the electoral system by decree.

The rights of the President formally remain unaltered, but the laws will be promulgated on the Cabinet's initiative alone. The President would lose all his functions except that of Chief of the Army, but this function, too could probably be abolished by a decree, which would place the army, the last potential opponent of the dictatorship, under the Cabinet's control.

In that case the President would simply become a figurehead.

Military expenditure: As the Budget would be settled by decree, and as the figures would not need to be made public, there would be no extra-Governmental control of public finances, and the Government would be free to increase military and naval expenditure without the least publicity.

No fear....is the key

I think we all need to learn to not be scared. Watching CNN's extended coverage this evening about all the different times, places, and ways that terrorists could strike, it appears that milking the fear of terror is now not only useful for policy initiatives, but it's also big business. Don't get me wrong, I am against ANYBODY that uses violence specifically to create fear and to attempt to exploit that fear for the furtherance of some political agenda (that is the definition of terrorism). I love to see those sorts of people thwarted in their efforts. But I also know that fear of terrorism has been turned into an instrument of sorts over the last five years, and that is a dangerous trend. Anyone that has studied the Salem Witch trials or the McCarthy years knows what I'm talking about. Preying upon people's fears is a threat to society. Let's not let ourselves be manipulated.

Wrong War, Not Anti-War

In Daniel Henninger's Wall Street Journal article "Democrats Knifed Lieberman on Eve Of Airliner Plot", available here or here, he writes:

That was unfortunate timing this week for the Lamont Democrats, declaring themselves officially the antiwar party within 24 hours of the Brits foiling an Islamic terror plot to spread thousands of U.S.-bound bodies across the North Atlantic, or perhaps across New York, Boston and Washington as the planes descended. Yes, we know; they support the war on terror but are merely against George Bush's war in Iraq. How does that work?

Last week before the Lamont victory, 12 members of the congressional Democratic leadership sent President Bush a letter urging that he start a phased pullout from Iraq, euphemized as a "redeployment," starting before the end of this year. But it is becoming increasingly fantastic to argue that in Iraq, with its apparently limitless supply of suicide bombers, hasn't much to do with the terror threats manifest elsewhere.

Put it this way: From the perspective as of yesterday of getting on a U.S. airliner, who would you rather have in the Senate formulating policy toward this threat -- Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman?

...

With the knifing of Joe Lieberman, the Democrats have locked in as the antiwar party. No turning back now. You're in or you're out. And this will be enforced. Susan Estrich, formerly of Dukakis for President, told the Fox News Channel this week that Hillary Clinton "has got to get herself in a position where she's for withdrawal of troops in Iraq before the next Democratic primary."

...

Events like the massive protests in Washington and elsewhere between 1969 and 1971 were in part about events in Vietnam, but there was also a huge amount of narcissistic self-indulgence in the movement. People joined in the expectation of being around an "event" -- part rock concert, part street theater, the rush of being part of a morally unblemished belief system. Sort of like the Web. This politics produced two major candidacies -- Eugene McCarthy's challenge to Lyndon Johnson in 1968 and George McGovern's to Richard Nixon in 1972. Both got blown out.

Seems the premise is that to be against the Iraq war is to be against fighting terrorism and ipso facto those who are/were against the war are soft on terrorism. I reject that premise.

1. I did not understand that the Dems are saying they are an anti war party. They are against the Iraq war, but that is not the same thing.

2. Daniel Henninger asks how the war on terror works. The "war on terror" (which is not a war) works exactly the way the UK police acted. They did not bomb West London. They sought out suspected terrorists and put them in jail. (By the way I think that they have to be charged within a month or released--Britain has no Guantanamo.)

3. I do not know the Lamont strategy, but for me if we are not able to send in 500,000 troops (and now the number is probably at least 1 million) there is no need to become bystanders to a civil war, which I predicted from day 1. Powell said if you break it you own it, but we never took control.

4. The only relationship that Iraq has with suicide bombers are from elsewhere. Suicide bombers preceded the Iraq situation by decades. The World Trade Center bombers had no special love for Iraqis and their motivation had more to do with Israel than Iraq.

5. I don't want Lieberman or Lamont formulating policy. I want a more efficient FBI and a more integrated police system than we have had up to now that works domestically and has wide contacts internationally.

6. Neither the old Hillary nor the new Hillary is the answer to this problem.

7. Mentioning Vietnam in the context of this article is a mistake just as Vietnam was a mistake. Does Daniel Henninger mean to say that we should have stayed in Vietnam? And since we left after losing about 60,000 young Americans has Vietnam been a problem? (I don't wish to imply that leaving Iraq would leave behind the same smooth transition to a peaceful country. I doubt that it would.)

8. The "war" on terror should be a bi-partisan "war". The WAR on Iraq cannot be since it was a mistake whose consequences are recurring.

9. I really doubt that the Democrats support for a fight against terror is zero. I consider that to be an unwarranted slur. And I am not even a Democrat. But it is a slur I am sensitive to since many friends who know of my opposition to the war on Iraq think of me as anti-American.

Why Do Americans Support Bush's Foreign Policy?

Do Americans reject the notion that Bush has been mistaken in his foreign policy in the Middle East due to:

1) fear of terror,
2) blind agreement with anything Bush,
3) love of Israel and or hatred of Arabs,
4) ignorance of history and world affairs,
5) apathy,
6) superiority complexes,
7) religious convictions
8) misguided moral righteousness
9) an activist need to feel relevant in foreign affairs or what?

I am interested in the answers.

How Bush Gave Democracy a Bad Name

The one and only hope I have is that when push comes to shove the whole Iranian nation would be less inclined to follow Ahmadinejad than the US has been in following Bush.

There is a large segment of the Iranian population that would resist taking Iran to war against the nuclear power and the combined military force of the West. Their army is not renowned.

The other possible hope is that the usual natural propensity of the Arab world to avoid coalescence could salvage the situation if someone showed them some tender loving care, instead of acting to unite them through atrociously ill-conceived invasions.

Kidnapping

It is customary practice that when a person or persons are kidnapped that the police will first try to talk to the kidnappers while establishing plans for their release. In some instances negotiations go on for days.

No so with Israel.

Take one of theirs and you unleash a storm of retribution which escalates many times over.

Of course the kidnapper, knowing this to be the case, should be forewarned that he/she/they cannot be sure of the unintended consequences and history shows that Israel shows no mercy. But the consequences for Israel of this approach can hardly be seen as positive and it would appear that it now requires an increased force to make its point.

If this goes on one wonders if we are worrying about the wrong country in the Middle East when we worry about the use of the atom bomb.

The George Principle

The Peter Principle says that people rise to the level of their own incompetence. The George Principle says that voters raise their leaders to above the level of their own incompetence.

I am very pessimistic about the Middle East. The only army that could contain the violence is not up to the job---the US Army. In fact I think that it could crack. It is a volunteer force and hardly likely to take on 5 million people in Iraq who want them out. And when real violence starts US guys may sensibly run. Or real mayhem and murderous retaliation by the US may ensue.

As to Lebanon it is touch and go whether the Israelis can do the job without resorting to mass murder. Arabs could spill over from Gaza into Israel while suicide types could come down from Lebanon. What good is an F-15 against a straggling group of volunteers.

If this is not the big blow up, we are getting closer to it and the US, with its volunteer force, can only get really violent or pull out.

The absurd idea that a force of outsiders should precede a cease fire fits into the neat Bush way of doing things: get someone else to do his bidding of the dangerous work. This time it is not his own army that he wants to mistakenly put at risk of death, it is foreign troops.

Believe me they won't do it.

Misguided War - When Civilians Are Caught In The Crossfire

The debate about what happen in Qana rages. Israeli supporters claim it was all a Hezbollah propaganda piece. These commentators look at the bodies and destruction but that's not what they see. They are looking for suspicious evidence, that a Hezbollah missile was the cause, that these children were perhaps transplanted from elsewhere, already dead.

What I have yet to see disputed is that the children who may or may not have died in Qana while they were sleeping in what they and their mothers thought was a safe house, were killed from some form of an Israeli attack, and surely a missile.

There is an acceptance by so many that the children were in the wrong place and time. Ain't that the truth! However, there are many who would squarely point the finger of blame, not at those that killed them, but at those that brought on the attacks that killed them.

By this reasoning, I can only assume that the Israelis are not capable of restraint. Their's is a reflex reaction - when they are provoked, they attack back. Consequently, any harm that comes to those that provoke Israel is all on the provokers, not on Israel.

So, nevermind that woman and children might be killed in the process. They are casualties of war.

Recall the Beslan catastrophe, when Russian forces stormed the school with tanks and heavy weaponry? The result was chaos and 344 civilians were killed, including 186 children. I know most Americans were rightfully horrified at the huge loss of life during the rescue, and would never have accepted that kind of outcome were the hostage crises on U.S. soil.

The same should hold true everywhere. If Hezbollah is mingling with populations of woman and children, that has to be taken into account, it cannot be dismissed. There are ways to win a war, ways to execute a battle, but they should not include putting civilians in danger, even if that's what the "other side" is suspected of doing.

And this is what is causing the public opinion backlash against Israel. At the very least, they have allowed themselves to be lured into the type of war Hezbollah wants to wage, and by taking the bait, they fall to the level of the foes they would want the world to demonize as terrorists. They become partners in terror to the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. Those that feed the beast are equally branded as demons.

And what of the vaunted precision guided missile system the Israelis are using? You know, the ones we sold to them. Is it a case of operator error when we hear report after report of mistaken hits on civilian homes, Red Cross vans, or U.N. observation posts? If so, it would seem that we need to get them some better training in the future to avoid such inconveniences. Too many such snafus can get embarrassing.

Is it the anonymity of a long distance strike that enables people to obscure the horror of the result? Is that an adequate enough defense that "shit happens" in war?

How is it different than lining up the civilians, the woman, the children, and shooting them at point blank range? Does the blind bomb make it alright?

If it does, then isn't that an admission that the precision guided missile isn't as precise as we claim it to be, and therefore when such weapons are used, they have the same result as the less precise missiles Hezbollah has also been accused of using?

What we're left with is yet another war with no winners, only losers. Israel's gambit that they could pound Hezbollah into submission isn't working, and the casualties have escalated to the point the whole world is watching for every new Israeli misstep. The powder keg that is the Middle East is poised to erupt if hostilities are not ended swiftly and completely. Otherwise Israel could find itself wishing it had responded to a kidnapping, let's say, "differently".

Just as Israel and its supporters will say Hezbollah is getting what it had coming, Israel has also fermented the seeds of international discontent against it. Even those that would not support Hezbollah's actions cannot condone the escalation of confrontation. Israel, as a democratic nation has the most to lose from this miscalculation, and will have played into Hezbollah's hands. They need an exit strategy that allows them to save face - but the big question is whether there is any opportunity for that now.

Cross-posted at On The Road To 2008.