Bush's Iraq-Vietnam comparison could easily backfire (like the war itself)

So Bush compares Iraq to Vietnam (sort of)... isn't that what many in the anti-war camp have been doing all along? And when you're trying to push victory in a war, I don't think Vietnam, largely seen as a military and political failure for the United States, is the best thing to cite.

President George W Bush has warned a US withdrawal from Iraq could trigger the kind of upheaval seen in South East Asia after US forces quit Vietnam.

"The price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens," he told war veterans in Missouri.

The price of America's occupation was also payed by the lives of many, in both Vietnam and Iraq. (And what about the Cambodians bombed needlessly and the other casualties of the horrendous, often covert, US policy of the Cold War?)

Mr Bush said the Vietnam War had taught the need for US patience over Iraq.

Patience, or the unneeded costs — in a humanitarian as well as a monetary sense — and blowback wars like Iraq and, notably, the old Soviet war in Afghanistan result in, not to mention loss of political face at home and abroad for those on the losing end(s) of such wars.

President Bush had already made a connection between the US-led occupation of Iraq and the Cold War-era Vietnam conflict in October of last year.

A sketchy connection of past conflict to present conflict
Semi-neocon Christopher Hitchens disputes the Iraq-Vietnam link, offering plenty of contrasts between the Iraq and Vietnam wars, which I myself have my reservations about. In a way, one can compare the Cold War against 'communism' to the global 'war on terror'; Vietnam and Iraq were major fronts of those 'wars', respectively. They both have ideologically-driven parties involved — one might say Saudi Arabia and Iran are Iraq's China, etc., during the Vietnam war. However, the parties involved in the current Iraq conflict are even more of a blur, and at this point America is fighting insurgents while trying to get Iraq to be able to walk with its own too.

Another shared trait of both wars is the unorthodox guerrilla warfare used by the insurgents/communists. Then again, things are much more wishy-washy in Iraq and there is no one enemy. Also Iraq fell with Saddam; America never fully conquered Vietnam (the north ended up taking the south).

Bush's logic that the 'terrorists' will take over Iraq just as the communists did in Vietnam has plenty of holes. For example, just the fact that there is no one group of insurgents hurts his argument. In addition, his new comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, mostly in a domestic political sense, makes it all too easy for those on the other side of the spectrum to argue that Iraq is a failed war, like Vietnam, and even the president who has constantly pursued the war can make that connection.

Not apples to apples
Iraq is complex. With so many outcomes, and so many parties involved or allegedly involved, the policy debate will no doubt rage on in Washington and Baghdad. Iraq can be compared to Vietnam. But it's not a comparison where all the common traits — or at least enough to make a good case — match up.

There are plenty of other comparisons and non-comparisons of the Iraq war to Vietnam, but saying Iraq 'is' Vietnam or saying the reverse (i.e. 'it isn't at all') gets a but too absolute. Things are not that clear cut. Jumping to polar extremes is one of the things that got the United States into this Mideast quagmire in the first place. Hopefully others won't make similar errors in their logic.

The differences between Brown and Bush

Brown might be pro-US, but he is no Blair.

The world media still seems to be buzzing about the meeting between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President George Bush. While they seemed to agree on many points, their disagreements — no matter how subtle; often on big issues — are coming to light. Bush views Iraq as the central front in the United States-led 'war on terror', whereas Brown sees Afghanistan as where the real battle against terror is and should be.

Iraq is no doubt full of terrorism, but only because of sectarian violence and foreign occupation. There are many factions, and so many battles. Terror networks via militia exist in both Afghanistan and Iraq and reach even to the national level (e.g. allegations of Saudi Arabia and Iran fueling some groups). But Afghanistan is the original site of the GWOT and the occupation there has the backing of the UN and NATO. Iraq, on the other hand, is much less straightforward and, contrasting with the reality of the occupation in Afghanistan, one can make the case that foreign soldiers being there does little in the fight against international terrorism.

Iraq is becoming a hotbed because of the war (blowback) — both the civil one and the one started in 2003 by the US and its allies; Afghanistan would be a terrorist haven regardless. Some view this blunt difference in priorities as Brown's way of appeasing Britain and wider Europe, vehemently opposed to the Iraq war.

Also on Iraq, Brown said that the United Kingdom will stick to plan and withdrawal troops regardless of whether the United States stays. However it does plan to stay there until the job is done. While the leaders are stressing unity, the fact that Britain intends to go its separate way from the US in Iraq is major. The British PM also opposes the language of a 'war' on terror and thinks a military fight against terrorism is not enough. I agree.

Another good move (away from Bush) Brown made was on terrorism. He rightly described terrorism as a "crime", compared to Bush's view that it is an act of pure evil and we must stop it even if we destroy the constitutional foundation of America in the progress and kill many. Brown is not the politicizer of terrorism his Atlantic counterpart is famous for being; I believed he handled the attempted attacks in Britain earlier this summer well, from both a political and a policy viewpoint. He also is right to be worried and want to take action on climate change; Bush couldn't care less.

In politics message, and thus language, is everything. Bush and Blair managed to illustrate their contrasting views pretty well without looking like they oppose each other absolutely.

[Bush and Brown's] words subtly illustrated, not policy differences, but their own policy priorities and approaches.

President Bush's language was, as always, full of phrases like "the war against extremists and radicals" in Iraq and around the world.

Prime Minister Brown deliberately described terrorism as a "crime", in an effort perhaps to demystify it and make it easier for everyone around the world, Muslims included, to oppose it.

And he tried to paint a more complex picture of Iraq by differentiating the factions - the Sunni/Shia split, the "involvement of Iran", the "large number of al-Qaeda terrorists".

However, as Mr Bush said, both agreed that this was "akin to the Cold War".
...
He called Afghanistan the "front line against terrorism," an honour normally assigned by Mr Bush to Iraq.

The British prime minister also referred a couple of times to the issue of "climate change". Mr Bush did not.

The point about Iraq and Afghanistan is that these are policies that Mr Brown inherited. This relationship has not yet been tested in the development of new ones.

The most difficult one could be Iran. Further sanctions are expected to be discussed at the UN in September but if there is no progress in getting Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, there could be pressure within the Bush administration for military action to be taken before the president leaves office in January 2009.

That would indeed be a test to see if the US and UK stayed together.

Brown also seems to be much more serious on humanitarian issues like Darfur than Bush, who limits his action on such issues to mere rhetoric (unless such issues might relate to his fight against terror, like in Somalia, then he'll even agree to indirectly work with/help the dreaded North Korea). Brown takes a special interest in world poverty and the plight of many in Africa; Bush cares only if terrorists may be involved, and even then the focus is not on the possible source of terrorism support: poverty, plight, and insecurity. Africa has plenty of that, and the Islamist extremists are taking advantage of that.

With all this talk of unity and strong ties, the leaders of America and the UK seem to have plenty of issues on which they disagree.

The candidates take on Iowa...

...and show off their millions.

Many of the candidates for the American presidency are campaigning as heavily as ever, with the election less than a year and a half away. More than a handful — including Democrat Barack Obama (see this post) — went to Iowa for and around Independence Day.

Recently the Q2 fundraising numbers came in, making US$10 million look like pocket change. Obama came up ahead in the first quarter of the year with over $25 million, proving to be a master of the all-important art of raising money for the election. Even though Hillary Clinton was able to raise millions by shoving her ex-president husband onto the lecture circuit, it was still not enough to catch her chief Democratic rival.

This quarter Obama raised over $30 million. Clinton collected over $20 million for the primary, an additional $7 million or so for the general election. Edwards could barely manage $9 mil. On the Republican side the figures are more telling. Poll leader Giuliani came up with $17 or so million in total ($15 million raised for primary) this past quarter; lagging McCain got barely over $10 million ($11.2 million) and the perhaps under-polled Romney reached roughly $20 million after he gave $6.5 million to himself ($14 million raised for primary). That means the three Democratic frontrunners dwarfed the Republican presidential candidates with $68 million compared to the GOP's $42 mil.

The Economist has a feature on the fundraising and the presidential nomination poll numbers. Clinton is polling around 37% for the Dems and her "future odds" for getting the Democratic nomination are 42%; Obama is polling 23% with odds of 38%; Edwards is polling 12% with odds of 6%. For the GOP Giuliani is polling less than he was before: 26% with future odds of 36%; McCain is polling a lackluster 17% and has the unthinkably low odds of 5% for the nomination; Romney is polling 10% with a surprising 17% odds. See here (Wikipedia) for more polls.

Is Alan Johnston's release a win for Hamas?

Some say 'Yes', others say 'No', and plenty of others say 'Maybe'.
BBC News has some analysis. This post for background.

America and Israel have announced that even Hamas' help in releasing BBC reporter Johnston does not change a thing in their spiteful relationship with the militant group slash Palestinian political party. Of course let's face reality: no matter what Hamas does they'll hate it, and vice versa.

As my vacation in Michigan nears its end, I won't be online much tomorrow. By Sunday, and definitely by Monday I will return to my usual posting schedule, if not with more posts.

Pakistan explodes

The row over the dismissal of the pragmatic Pakistani Supreme Court justice has turned violent. Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry had maintained the independence of the court, often standing up to the dictatorial power of Pervez Musharraf. As I blogged about a while back, since the chief justice's dismissal, there have been fairly nonviolent protests my lawyers in Karachi — Pakistan's largest city, in the south — and elsewhere. This past weekend the protests worsened as government loyalist forces clashed with protesters. Soon unrest came and tens died.

Restraints have been put on the Pakistani media's coverage; protests have been all but quelled; and the police has been given the authority to shoot dead anyone trying to spark up more protest — nonviolent or otherwise. Chaudhry, meanwhile, has been marching in protest. A key Supreme Court official was found murdered in his house early on Monday, certainly not a coincidence. Fearful of the chaos, businesses have had to close in several major cities, effectively paralyzing Pakistan.

Speculation has consumed western coverage of the events, as Musharraf's legitimacy is at stake. He says he will follow the Supreme Court's electoral decision — whenever the rigged election takes place — and his ousting of Chaudhry shows that while he may indeed follow the court, he will make sure it is on his side. His message is this: no one shall challenge my power. Of course since Pakistan is supposedly an ally in the American 'war on terror', the US has remained virtually silent on the issue, let alone the democracy bashing by a leader (Musharraf) marginalized by the radicals and the normal people seeing his country too close to the not-well-liked United States.
Here are some of Musharraf's options:

Broadly speaking, the emerging consensus is that the president has four options.

* To ride out the crisis in the hope that the protests run out of steam. The experience of Lahore suggests that is not working.

* He could simply accept that he had been wrongly advised, reinstate the chief justice, and look for a scapegoat. But many say it is too late for that now.

* He could declare a state of emergency and impose martial law. That might lead to violence on the streets, and to international condemnation, including from his strategic ally the United States.

* He could reach out to the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of Benazir Bhutto, generally seen as the most popular political force in the country. According to the rumoured outlines of such a deal, corruption charges against Ms Bhutto would be dropped and she would be allowed to return from exile, if the PPP supported General Musharraf's presidency. However, the PPP says it will not accept the president if he stays on as army chief.

Meanwhile the attacks continue across the nation. Pakistan is a nuclear state, and its stability is at stake. If Musharraf cannot rule, someone else must. The worst case scenario would be if extremists took over. Then the world would see real madmen with nukes.


technorati tags: Chaudhry, musharraf, pakistan, karachi, justice+violence+pakistan, lahore, islamabad, pakistan+supreme+court, political+stability, united+states, usa, war+on+terror, news

The Republicans' Iraq war demon

The Financial Times speculates on fears within the GOP over self-defeat at home from the defeat abroad in Iraq; that is, the Republican White House's unpopular Iraq strategy is hurting the party in Congress.

Talking to Fox News, the conservative broadcaster, on his visit to Baghdad on Thursday, Dick Cheney said: “We didn’t get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican party. Our mission is to do everything we can to prevail ... against one of the most evil opponents we’ve ever faced.”

Back in Washington Mr Cheney’s Republican colleagues are showing growing irritation with the vice-president’s Iraq war logic. On Tuesday 11 moderate Republican lawmakers warned George W. Bush that their support for his Iraq “surge” was rapidly running out. Tom Davis, a congressman from northern Virginia, told the US president that in one portion of his House district just 5 per cent supported his Iraq strategy.

The same growing unease applies with even greater force to Republicans in the Senate, who hold 21 of the 33 Senate seats that will be contested in next year’s congressional elections. Many Democrats believe that they could improve their narrow 51-49 Senate majority next year to a filibuster-proof 60 seats or more.

Such is the Democratic party’s confidence that some Democrats are talking of bringing about the same kind of splits in the Republican party that so damaged their own party’s electoral fortunes following the Vietnam war a generation ago.

Bush's political power is another thing getting hit hard because of his unpopularity. Remember: money can buy elections...

Mr Bush managed to raise $10.5m for his party at the event compared to $17m last year and $38.5m the year before. For the first time in many years both the Democratic presidential field and the Democratic congressional leadership are out-fundraising their Republican opponents by about 50 per cent.

In the next 10 days Mr Bush will have another opportunity to demonstrate his immunity to the US public’s backlash against the Iraq war, when Congress sends him its second version of the Iraq and Afghanistan war funding bill he vetoed in its first incarnation last month.

Some of the presidential candidates for 2008 are already distancing themselves from the Bush administration's Iraq war policy.

Nightmare scenario for the Republicans: Democrats take a much larger majority (enough to filibuster) in both houses of Congress in the 2008 election, as well as the presidency. Disillusioned, the party fractures further and their conservative base breaks into religious right and libertarian camps.

Nightmare scenario for the Democrats: No political gain over Bush and his party's mishandling of the war. Because of power cockiness, scandals occur at a massive rate. Loose public confidence and blamed for failings in current state of the war. Anti-war and more hawkish factions duke it out right before the elections, where their majority is lost.

technorati tags: iraq, republicans, GOP, congress, democrats, politics, united+states, usa, bush, 2008+elections, white+house, party+politics

France: voting for change

Sarkozy v. Royal comes to an electoral close in less than two hours...

Some French voters think Sarkozy would do a better job at changing France for the better; some think Royal would. Sarkozy would be more likely to make tough, necessary changes, but his policies are sometimes undesirable and he has been courting the far right in order to ensure a win in this election. Royal, on the other hand, may be too weak and politically inexperienced to enact the change France desperately needs, and she still sticks to her old left foundation — something she, and France, needs to move away from. Job security and market liberalization are two issues at hand, as are immigration and law enforcement. The reform of the government structure in general is also needed. Royal spends too much; Sarkozy invades privacy and uses power too much.

As of now, over 75% of voters have cast their ballots for either Sarkozy or Royal in the second and final round of the French presidential election. This is the highest turnout in decades. The first round also brought out near-record turnout.

Some are pessimistic about whether this election will bring change. No matter who wins, they need to be open to defying protests and what seems like the defiance of the public to reforms for the greater good. Current President Jacques Chirac was too afraid to follow through on his initiatives for change, and many French politicians flinch every time they see protests against the reforms they wish to pass. Whoever wins has the support of the public, and should use that support to actually change whatever needs changing — and many things do. On the other hand, the winner does not want to turn into a dictator by public choice, per se.

This election has been full of controversy and debate, bringing the French seemingly closer to the politics France is known for. However these are politics with a new face: voters, forced once again to choose between left and right, are not following traditional voting labels. One memorable event has been Royal warning that her left-wing supporters could riot if Sarkozy wins, which can either be taken as a political threat or a misunderstood musing. Riot police and extra law enforcement have been sent to Paris to avoid mass riots (remember 2005?) if political tempers flare as the result of a Sarkozy win, especially among the poorer suburb dwellers and immigrants.

In France, the president is a very powerful figure, and one could only hope Sarkozy or Royal will not abuse that power. So will it be the traditional leftist with a new spin, Socialist Segolene Royal, or the center-right (neo-)Gaullist, Nicolas Sarkozy? I’m guessing the latter. Although he has the will power to pass the reforms France needs, he also has a tendency to misuse power. Royal just doesn’t seem cut out to be the leader either.

Nonetheless its not my choice that counts, the votes of the French people will decide who the next leader of France will be, and those votes are important indeed. Bolstering France in the international community will be yet another task for the next president; and globalization is a huge issue at hand, politicially, culturally (immigration), and economically (trade and jobs). For example, both candidates have been bad-talking the EU, an overused scapegoat for poor government policy and an 'evil' Sarkozy or Royal are trying to make voters think they could fight against and protect France. This protectionism will certainly not help France's troubled economy.

Early results will be announced later today, and official results will come on 10 May. Several polls from very late on 4 May put Sarkozy 10 percentage points in front of his challenger.

Centrist Francois Bayrou, who lost the first round, has seen his popularity skyrocket and may yet be able to form a moderate political coalition with his weak UDF party. Go Bayrou!

Wikipedia has an extensive article on the election.

Update:
Early results claim Sarkozy as the winner of this second round vote. Royal has admitted defeat and police are preparing for political unrest in case rioting brakes out as a result of Sarkozy's electoral triumph.

technorati tags: france+election+2007, french+presidental+election, nicolas+sarkozy, segolene+royal, in+the+news, france+reform+politics, globalization

Democrats wasting time with Iraq politiking?

Good symbolism on an issue (Iraq) the White House thought it was the only American political power in control of, but it's now time for the Democrats to move on...

AP via Guardian:

A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.
...
The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.
...
The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

The Democrats have already reached enough benchmarks as far as Iraq war political symbolism goes, isn’t it time to call it a day? Everyone knows the bill requiring withdrawal is going to get vetoed by President Bush. Why not work with the president on issues like alternative energy and immigration, issues the Democrats and president can agree on and accomplish things on, instead of just pushing a legislative agenda only to show Bush what he already must know: the Iraq war effort is going badly and many Americans — Republicans included — are now against it. Executive v. legislature isn't going anywhere also.

I like debate, especially on an issue such as Iraq, but an open debate this is not. It has been muddled by partisan politics, as usual, and the Democrats are not acting that much mature than their Republican predecessors.

Pelosi had her 100 hours of progress and political limelight in the House, but the Dems apparently did not plan much else useful after their initial entrance to office with the exception of political maneuvers: challenging the White House on Iraq and investigating the executive branch’s misdeeds. All together neither of those major actions have been very useful, and real progress needs to be made on issues dealing less with political props and more with bettering America, its people, and the world.

Even on issues the White House and Congress do not agree on — health care, climate change, bioresearch, education, judicial reform, etc. — there can still be compromises, and progress, made. I do not think either branch of the government is out to hurt the American people; I doubt Bush has a strong vendetta against blacks and I doubt the Democrats do not 'support the troops'. However I doubt both party’s abilities to accomplish anything other than filling the political vacuum with baseless political rhetoric, and a bunch of symbolic chess moves on Iraq — moves that are, in Congress' case, only symbolic.

While the White House’s power needs to be checked and its behavior put in line, Congress needs reforms of its own: basic ethics, campaign financing, limit on pork-barrel spending, an end to tacking on unrelated amendments to bills in order to affect — or rather, exploit — the process, and the streamlining of the process, making it more transparent to the people so they can not just cluelessly watch on the sidelines but take action. But knowing this is politics, especially American politics, concessions must be made by all sides. I think this administration’s handling of the Iraq war has been despicable, but little good comes from wasting valuable time and political capitol on an issue that Congress can frankly, in the end, do little about.

Thus far, the president runs the war game, and as nice as it is that that status quo seems to be changing (a political surge?), the Democrats could be doing better things with their majority. They were supposedly elected back in November because of Iraq, now it is time to stop rubbing Iraq in the administration’s face, and start taking action on other issues. Of course Iraq is a major issue, but the president, for better or for worse, gets the final say. He has the veto power over Congress and the Democrats do not have nearly enough votes to override that veto. The Dems should either find a new road to fixing Iraq policy — circumventing the White House, in a way — or put the troop matter on the sidelines and focus on something they can accomplish.

Coincidentally, I am not the only one describing this latest string of questionable, if hasty, Congressional moves on Iraq as 'politiking', the Iraqi foreign minister thinks so too.

As far as investigating pre-war intelligence goes (see the recent Congressional subpoena of Condi Rice), there is no use picking open old wounds. The investigation should continue, but there should also be a focus on, as I said, issues on which real progress can be made. The whole Iraq issue might now even bite back at the Democrats in the 2008 election, contrary to what they believe, because the White House does have more popularity with and respect from the people than Congress. No doubt, however, Iraq will play a large role in the election, but that will not be the only issue, which the Democrats need to grasp.

My message to the Democrats: the honeymoon is well over, you’ve proved your point on Iraq, the people get it, the administration gets it; its alright to continue, but focus on more pressing, realistic topics at hand — and stop acting like your majority will last forever. As Congress locks horns with the Bush administration on Iraq, with gridlock galore, other issues are ignored.

Bottom line: Bush will veto this new bill; and then what?

technorati tags: iraq, congress, democrats, bush, congress+iraq+war

The future of Scotland, and the state of a Union

It would be hard to believe that the land united for hundreds of years with England and Wales could become independent some day soon. But it may be a reality.

Although the Scottish Parliament is weak compared to the British parliament, one might compare the power to that of an American state, albeit more deluded, England does not have its own separate legislature — just Westminister. Therefore lies the argument by English nationalists: Scotland gets more powers from political devolution, and England has even less of a say. Put simply: Scotland has its own MPs in the House of Commons, it also has its own parliament; England just has its MPs in the Commons. They both also have representation in the mostly-symbolic European Parliament. Do only the Scots deserve partial domestic rule, or should the other parts of the union of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland get similar devolution too, as odd as it sounds. I'll discuss that — the fairness, practicality, and my 'solution' — later.

The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), an up-and-coming political force in Scotland, may at first sound right-wing, like BNP. However, it is a progressive center-left party whose primary goal is Scottish independence. I skimmed through their policies and other writings on their website, and I must say I'm impressed. One issue might be if Scotland does reach independence, what's to keep the SNP from not following through on its bold promises? What will it have to work for — besides reelection? Right now SNP is working hard for Scottish independence, not just pressing for devolution yet also not being militant about it. When their primary goal is accomplished — if ever — how do we know they will act as they promise when their basic political premise has been accomplished. (Alas, therein lies the problem with party politics.) People ranging from businessman Sir Tom Farmer to world-famous actor Sir Sean Connery have voiced their support for SNP, and Connery has provided plenty of funds also — that is, until regulations prevented him from doing so. SNP is doing well in the opinion polls.

The SNP may even take power in the Scottish local and Parliamentary elections on 3 May. The election ironically falls two days after the 300th anniversary of the union of England and Scotland (i.e., with Wales, the United Kingdom). If SNP stays in the minority, a referendum on splitting the union — one that could officially take place as early as 2010 — would be pointless. As of now, no other major political party supports such an independence referendum, and even though SNP is up in the polls, no party is likely to come out with a clear governing majority.* Gordon Brown*, British chancellor of the exchequer, heir-apparent to the prime ministry later this spring, and a Scotsman himself, has stated a Scottish split from the union would be devastating economically for Scotland. Others seem to view the same of the SNP's proposed economic policy. I guess he also wouldn't have a constituency in the British parliament if Scotland were independent... At least England would be an independent Scotland's 'biggest pal'.

In my mind, if further Scottish devolution is to take place, why shouldn't England, Northern Ireland, and Wales* get their own parliaments? They would only deal with local matters, and be pretty powerless. Britain is a unitary state, with a central government; if there would to be devolution for lands other than Scotland in the Union, maybe there'd be less resentment to the Scots and xenophobia in England, and less problems between Westminister and Wales and N Ireland. It seems only fair. Either that or a push for Scottish independence. But a 300-year union is a hard one to break. Let's see how things play out at the polls in a couple of weeks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has emphasized the upcoming Scottish election's importance. He is right to do so: the state of the Union is at stake.

Update:
One of the Nationalists' primary goals is entry into the EU and UN as a proper nation-state, of course that is yet another barrier for those yearning for an independent Scotland. Might their dreams look better on paper and manifestos than as a reality?

***Corrections:
Thanks to Anonymous for informing me that Wales 'already has devolution', it is the Labour Party that has a deal with the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, and that I once again misspelled "Brown" (I am used to spelling it 'Browne' on account of a family name).

technorati tags: scotland, SNP, scottish+nationalists, tony+blair, gordon+brown, scot, united+kingdom, britain, england, politics, news, westminister, scottish+parliament+elections

Political stability against extremists: the real Mid-East danger

Iran is in the news more and more. Between its capture of 15 British sailors, to the advancement of its nuclear weapons program and defiance of sanctions. Much of it — from anti-Zionist rhetoric to nuclear politics — might just be an act. Like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Iran's Ahmadinejad is populist and very showy.

At the risk of sounding like I'm in Shakespeare's time: How will this all fadge?

I think there are many factors that cause discomfort on both sides — Iran and the United States — one issue being the Iranian president's harsh anti-Israel rhetoric, another being the allegations of meddling in Iraq (which could just be a scapegoat excuse for the Bush administration, who often create false scapegoats), along with Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear program. I think if Iran, Israel, the US, and Palestine all were more open-minded, a treaty of peace and political recognition could be in order and would help relations between all of the countries — including those between Israel and the US and the Arab and Muslim world.

Iran still needs to at least let IAEA inspectors in. But with the political situations at home for America, Iran, and even Israel and Palestine, who knows who will next be in charge and how that will shape this nuclear diplomacy we are seeing more and more of. I think the US would rather have the prospect of its own security — even if that is only a sense of security — than the prospect of peace. American foreign policy has consistently focused more on preventing aggression than promoting peace. There are still plenty in the government who think peace is best achieved by though military force.

Ahmadinejad may think his hard-line rhetoric is helping him win over supporters abroad, but it is not helping him at home. Respect is an issue all sides need to learn, for without it, real diplomacy cannot take place and real progress cannot be made. It is now in the mutual interest of both Iran and the United States to work together on Iraq. It is in the interest of the US and Israel (since they are allies) to work with Israel's neighbors; peace between Israel and the Arab world also helps lower international terrorism and Muslim extremism, as does quelling the sectarian violence in Iraq. The Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as the civil war in Iraq, have both spread Islamic fundamentalism and created new waves of hopelessness, aggression, and, thus, terrorism and irrationality to those lands in such strife and their allies and supporters.

A big issue is political stability. If the current hardline government is taken over by extremists — because the government isn't delivering what the people want (thus the radicals get public support) or some other reason — those extremists may have an industrial level nuclear program in their hands. That is not good. The same thing goes for Pakistan. In that case, the US is close to the country (Pakistan), which empowers the extremists in a way. Pakistan is already a nuclear state — imagine if Islamic terrorists got hold of nuclear weapons. However, in Iran's case there does need to be a level of dialogue. Isolation would empower extremists even more than seeing their country talk to a country they despise would.

In short: the US needs to talk with Syria to get it away from Iran; needs to talk with Iran for plenty of other reasons; and needs to talk to all in the Middle East because of the Iraq issue, along with the problem of terrorism. Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are all oppressive governments with ties to militias. However, all three view terrorism as as much of a threat as the United States does, if not more (extremists are in their own backyards).

Israel and the US alike need to stop ticking off those in the Middle East and empowering radicals, the opposite of their goals but nonetheless they are direct products of their policy. All parties need to learn from history. A closed, aggressive, hardline state cannot last long in the modern world of politics — at least it cannot when extremist movements more conservative than their own governments are brewing within and close to their borders. A regional power, but outcast, cannot continue annoying its neighbors, nor can it concede.

The world's superpower, seen as imperial and bad as ever by those in the Mid-East, cannot continue in its rogue anti-terroirsm fight when it makes the terrorist situation worse for itself and others (fire paradox again). It's perfect to choose the US as the face of evil: its big and powerful, yet faulty, as the Iraq debacle has shown, and does not position itself as benevolent or afraid to use preemptive force. It also sides with Israel through thick and thin.

America finds Iran as easy a scapegoat (for Iraq troubles) and poster-child for evil (see 'war on terror' and 'axis of evil') as Iran does for America ('death to the great Satan). That kind of politics doesn't help anyone but the extremists and the Manichaens like Bush and Ahmadinejad. Neither is doing swimingly at home either. (Keep in mind Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. Although he is the most internationally visible, he is probably roughly third on the chain of command.) Supremacy in a region as volatile as the Middle East is a tour de force. That being said, it often requires either massive brute force or political ingenuity.

technorati tags: iran, in+the+news, politics, international+relations, foreign+policy, ahmadinejad, united+states, usa, israel, syria, terrorism, islamic+extremism, pakistan, nukes

Strike on Iran would only help its nuclear program...

An attack on Iran — see here for background — would prove only counter-intuitive, says yet another scholarly report (PDF).

Summary/abstract:

The prospect of a nuclear Iran causes acute concern not only in the United States and Israel, but also in Europe, the Middle East and most of the rest of the world. Recent indications from the USA point towards possible military strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. The aim of such strikes would be to put back by many years any ambitions elements in the Iranian regime may have for nuclear weapons.
...
far from stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, military attacks would probably accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

The reasons for this counter-intuitive outcome are that:

* Limited intelligence about Iran's nuclear programme means that many hundreds of strikes would still not destroy all nuclear related facilities and materials.
* Iran could then move from a gradual and relatively open nuclear programme, to a clandestine crash nuclear weapons programme using secret facilities, salvaged materials, and possibly procuring supplies from the black market, outside of Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty controls.
* Under crash nuclear weapons programme conditions, Iran could build a nuclear weapon within two years if the decision was made. Which is less time than the evidence suggests Iran could manage with the current programme.

In the long-term, the report concludes, Iran cannot be deterred from attaining a nuclear weapons capability by bombing its facilities.

The same kind of idea can be tied to many counterterrorism efforts (see 'fire paradox'), especially those in the US's "war on terror", that only get a population more angry and garners the terrorists more support. In fact, terrorist operations can have the same effect. The Germans' terrorizing of Britain during World War II only increased the Brits fervor to defeat the Nazis; the 9/11 terror attacks got America riled up too, albeit in a fashion that has led to irrational political decisions.

Putin: United States is 'dangerous'

Russian President (more like dictator) Vladimir Putin has fully come out of the closet, so to speak, on how he views [what he sees as] the United States' virtually unchecked power.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has criticised the United States for what he said was its "almost uncontained" use of force around the world.
Washington's "very dangerous" approach to global relations was fuelling a nuclear arms race, he told a security summit in Munich.

Correspondents say the strident speech may signal a more assertive Russia.

The White House said it was "surprised and disappointed" by the Russian president's comments.

I do agree with Putin's assertions of the United States' foreign policy and nuclear actions, often acting against non-prolifiration and, as Putin says, making the global arms race worse. As a side note, why is the White House's response always so lackluster? I mean first the Palestinian agreement and now this, not to mention a history of boring, generic comments on breaking events and comments.

Not long ago US Vice President Cheney made a speech in which he basically demonized Russia — especially on its energy and foreign policies — and actually made some good points. That was one of the few times I agreed with Cheney — on anything. Putin lashed back, comparing the US to a hungry wolf. Of course, Cheney and Putin, both advocates of a strong, almost-authortarian to authoritarian executive government and favoring the neoimperialistic style bullying of foreign states, have gone back and forth for a while now.

Putin has used Russian state owned natural gas company Gazprom to essentially bully states like Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia — all former Soviet republics — in re to energy. Views of Gazprom, however, differ. An effect of various global energy factors, Russia has been climbing back to the might it held in the Cold War days, or so it seems. Because of that new found prosperity, some have said the people of Russia remain content with Putin's authoritarian reforms and limits on free rights. No doubt the validity of such statements also differ (I happen to have talked with someone living in Russia who says people are not too happy with Putin).

Putin's latest comments have reinitiated speculation of a new Cold War. This is what happens in a unipolar world — though that notion in itself is also disputed, especially if one looks at the latest WEF.

Problems with Putin's assertion of the US trying to make a 'unipolar' world:

If the world is unipolar, it will not be for long;

the global power structure may not be unipolar at all, just as the US might not be a superpower (it depends on one's viewpoint);

with forces like globalization, the world is becoming, if anything, more multi-polar;

the US may be powerless to hamper the effects of multi-polarity.
There's a difference between striving for neoimperialism and establishing unipolarity.

Less than a year ago there was a feud between Russia and the US over allegations by the US military that Russia had tipped off and supported Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to the American invasion in 2003. Back then there were calls that a new Cold War was coming. For now the feud exists within the bounds of words and rhetoric, not actions; it is highly unlikely this latest Putin comment will result in anything more than an attempted slap on the wrist by the White House and a rebuttal by VP Cheney — which would happen even if Putin said nothing (it's Cheney, after all).

One thing I do like about Putin was when, in a 60 Minutes interview, he responded to criticism of his reforms crippling what's left of Russian democracy with a criticism of his own of the American electoral system. Though the US is no doubt more democratic than modern day Russia, not the least Russia under Putin.


Song stuck in my head right now: "All The Pretty Faces" by The Killers.

technorati tags: vladimir+putin, dick+cheney, cheney, putin, united+states, power, international+relations, politics, unipolar, russia, news

More analysis of the Abbas-Meshaal deal

This is a follow-up of this post on a new agreement reached in Mecca, Saudi Arabia between the leaders of Palestine's two major political parties, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal, on a new power structure for the Palestinian Authority.

The BBC's analysis (which I recommend) plays down hopes, with a usual does of realism.

The Mecca agreement, reached after two days of intensive negotiations in the Saudi city of Mecca between the Palestinian factions, raises two sets of questions.

Will it end the weeks of fighting in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah fighters?

And will it persuade the United States, the Europeans and other international players to resume much-needed economic aid to the Palestinian Authority?

Only if both things happen can the deal be regarded as a breakthrough. Hence the caution with which news of the Mecca accord has been greeted.

The most immediate test is for the two factions to rein in their fighters while the politicians finalise the creation of a power-sharing government.

AGREEMENT KEY POINTS
Ismail Haniya of Hamas remains PM
Key interior, finance and foreign ministries to be run by independents
Reports say Hamas to take nine cabinet posts, Fatah six and one each to four other parties
No explicit recognition of Israel

What might be the problem is what is not in the power of these politicians — i.e. the militant wings of their parties and even the actions of Israel.

Another factor is the response of the West to this latest agreement, a reaction lackluster thus far.

Palestinian Islamist group Hamas urged the West on Friday to accept a new Palestinian unity government which it said was the only way to ensure stability in the Middle East.

Hamas and Fatah signed on Thursday a coalition deal to end factional warfare and to try to win back Western aid halted because of Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel.

"We have agreed with the Saudis to market this agreement internationally. Our (Saudi) brothers are in constant contact with the Americans and Europeans and I believe there is a possibility to market this agreement," Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Reuters.

"They cannot ignore this agreement and impose their own conditions," he said in reference to the United States. "The European Union should open a dialogue with this new government and this is the only way to have stability in the region."

There was a muted international reaction to the accord sealed in Saudi Arabia between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal.

The United States, which spearheaded the economic sanctions, was silent. The European Union said on Friday it would study the deal "in a positive but cautious manner". France welcomed the agreement and said the international community should back the new government. Britain described the accord as "interesting".

Surely they could do better than that?

The Economist seemed to share a similar viewpoint to my post on this latest development in Palestinian politics.

technorati tags: palestine, israel, abbas, hamas, fatah, mechaal, west, poltics, middle+east, news, analysis,

Everything in moderation? A tale of two global problems

Two major topics lately are bird flu (H5N1, aka Avian flu) and climate change (aka global warming). These potential catastrophes have several things in common: they both are at a global scale with vast impact, both are scientific, and both are hyped, in one way or another (downplayed or over-played). More bird flu deaths and spreading have brought that issue back in the headlines and a recent report of notable significance by the IPCC have evermore raised awareness on climate change and its partly human causes.

Some say — or seem to be saying — the demonic West is being selfish about bird flu’s affects on places like Indonesia; some — countries and corporations alike — are controversially commercializing/politicizing a potential pandemic, risking lives for their own profit and selfishness.

Some say rich nations need to work on reducing greenhouse emissions; some are (somewhat) hypocritical for saying other industrial countries are causing all the climate change problems. Some are stating the latest international report on climate change is too rhetoricized and vague (somewhat contrary to the IPCC’s clear standing on the topic, but I get the writer’s point). Some send mixed signals by treating the environmentalism relating to global warming as a new hyped-up religion of sorts and saying nothing in the studies have really changed. Some say the battle against human-caused climate change is a war. Some, including powerful Washington think tank AEI, even offered large sums of money to people in exchange for their disputing the IPCC’s recent report. This kind of scientific corruption is nothing new and some has been linked to the US government and energy corporations like Exxon — whose products promote global warming — in the past.

Me? Well I am worried about bird flu, though I shall not lose sleep over it, and climate change is not the best thing either. Neither are impending doom, a monster that will eat you when you sleep at night, and neither are totally harmless. The sureness about global warming’s impending eventuality, and the fact we know it is already showing its effects, is more than that of bird flu. Bird flu is more chance-related in whether it will be a real danger (i.e. will the disease spread from human to human and in what form).

I think we need to work on climate change by finding alternative energy sources like geothermal power — which could serve ten percent of the United State’s electricity needs by 2050 at minimal cost. Solar-harnessing, as well as sources getting energy from the kinetic movements of wind and water, (solar power, wind power, water power, respectively) are also promising, easy, virtually non-polluting power alternatives that are cost efficient in the long term, especially if they help hamper the economically damaging effects of global warming. While I am not as committed or hyped as Al Gore on the subject, action needs to be taken by citizens, governments, and companies alike.

People, governments, and companies also should be prepared for bird flu. Preparation and preventative measures are fine, they’re moderate; hype, scaremongering, or denial can all lead to great harm, albeit different types of harm, for both the issues of climate change and bird flu. The EU is being tough on both issues, working on the bird flu problem since before it reached Turkey and the Russian Urals — long before the US media finally jumped on the bird flu wagon, although late and with plenty of confusing hype. The EU is not doing a great job with global warming, but it’s a start. They now have proposed arguably the toughest auto emissions standards on the planet. When you really get down to it, bird flu is just another potential pandemic and climate change is coming no matter what, human caused or not. What worries me about the latter is that really humans may be pushing climate change to a dangerous level where its effects will be all too disastrous. What worries me about both is if they are too hyped, it will be like the boy who cried wolf. People, including policymakers, will be tired and confused by the hype and mayhem and any efforts against a real threat would be hampered greatly by such a consequence.

There are the global-warming-is-human-stunted-and-dangerous deniers and the people crying wolf. The latter are promoting and feeding hysteria, for example, saying last summer’s heat and Hurricane Katrina of 2005 were both directly caused by global warming and not just a weather pattern to an extent (then why wasn’t there another Katrina in 2006, I ask). Lastly, there are the people who neither like the hype nor the denial. I am one of those people. It will be easy for those uneducated on these topics, partly by fault of the media and their governments, to be in any of the first two camps and easily switch between them. If there is no unseasonable heat this coming summer I am sure there will be plenty switching from the hype to the denial camp; if there is, I am sure there will be some switching from denial to hype — for the wrong reasons.

Be prepared for global warming; use common sense and preventative measures for bird flu. Don’t buy into the often propaganda hype sometimes utilized by individuals and bodies to promote their causes — whether they are hyping up awareness about bird flu or climate change or playing down either issue. Both are important issues, and one can do more, politically and personally, to work against the inevitable one, human-caused global warming, than the other one.


Songs stuck in my head right now: "I Bet You Would Look Good On The Dance Floor" by the Arctic Monkeys and "Such Great Heights" by The Postal Service.

technorati tags: IPCC, politics, news+media, bird+flu, avian+flu, h5n1, climate+change, global+warming

State of the US economy: better than you think

One thing I find funny lately is the notion that the United States economy is going downhill. It’s just not true. People from both parties and ends of the political spectrum are bombarding each other, saying that their opposition is worsening the economy. Anti-free trade people attack for example pro-free trade people for trade deficit bringing the American economy to its knees; anti-Iraq war people attack Iraq war hawks for hurting the economy with the massive cost of the war; people both against welfare in the US criticize it for harming the economy. The list goes on and on.
The Washington Post reports that 2006 wasn’t actually too bad of a year.

The U.S. economy turned in a surprisingly strong performance last year, new data show, growing 3.4 percent despite higher interest rates, high oil prices and the sharpest housing downturn in 15 years.

The report from the Commerce Department, showing that economic growth picked up in 2006 from the 3.2 percent growth of 2005, dispelled any lingering doubts about the momentum of the economy going into this year. Many economists predict growth will slow this year, but gone are the recession worries of last summer.

I am not arguing that there are not plenty of problems with things like inflation, interest, manufacturing jobs (especially auto), oil and energy, trade deficit, and the housing market, but the US economy in general is still holding strong. Just the fact that the economy is doing well means a recession or slump in the economy may be all but eminent. There are always cries of wolf by economists and market annalists; we can neither believe all of the fearful predictions nor can we dismiss each one.

Economy and Iraq are the two issues that brought the Democrats into power in last November’s elections. Of those two issues, the domestic one — the economy — has been the one less covered by the media. It was arguably just as significant to voters according to exit poll data, but a war and foreign policy disaster makes for more sexy news I guess. Nonetheless, ‘free trade’ and ‘fair trade’ have been hot issues for a long time now, and many people haven’t a clue what either one means; political jargon plus macroeconomics does not make a good topic a layman could grasp.

The American economy is doing fine. No doubt it could easily be worse. One thing politicians need to remember is that no matter how many tax cuts they give the middle class, no matter how much they want to isolate the United States from global trade, the best thing they can do for the economy is education. The US and many other developed, industrialized nations are at a point where the agricultural sectors have largely turned to manufacturing (c. Industrial Revolution) and now, in the information age, manufacturing jobs will need to convert into services jobs. A person who would have been a potato farmer in 1800, a factory worker in 1950, would now find the best job security in being a programmer for Google or a designer for Ford. Of course, service sector jobs — even the ‘elite’ jobs like those in the medical profession — are being outsourced. Eventually the sectors and shared trade between countries will need to balance out.

More on so-called free trade soon.

technorati tags: trade, free+trade, united+states, economy, news, economics, market, commerce

Iraq situation: surging…

…in more ways than one — political, violence, and US troop levels (?).
UPDATED

See this post — on White House newspeak, public opinion on Iraq, and the "surge" — for more.

BBC News::

US President George W Bush is preparing to unveil his long-awaited strategy for the future of US involvement in Iraq.

Not as exciting or fresh as the iPhone, but important nonetheless. Ever since the Democrats’ win in the midterm elections last year, and since the new Congress’ swearing in almost a week ago, Bush has been stepping up the level of discussion on US policy in Iraq — prodded of course by the aforementioned political events and the former’s significance. In fact, as a Washington Post article points out, it’s a change in tactics, not strategy.

As Washington journalists debate whether to call President Bush's plan to send 20,000 more American troops into Iraq a "surge" or an "escalation," they are letting the White House get away with a much more momentous semantic scam.

The White House would have you believe that Bush tonight will be announcing a new strategy. But from all indications, all Bush will be talking about -- yet again -- is changing tactics.

No doubt the Democrats, still basking in their midterm glory and unaware that the honeymoon is [long] over, are very divided when (NYT) it comes to what to do with Iraq.

While Democrats find themselves unusually united in their resistance to a troop increase, party leaders are locked in an internal debate over how far to go in objecting to the administration’s Iraq strategy.

In the most aggressive of the new tactics, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has said he will introduce legislation on Tuesday to require the president to gain new Congressional authority before sending more troops to Iraq. The bill is the first proposal in the Senate that would prohibit paying for an increase in American troops over their level on Jan. 1.

The new House speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, has similarly suggested that Democrats consider blocking financing for a troop increase, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, vowed Monday “to take a look at it.”

The Democratic Party sailed to victory in midterm elections in the fall on a promise to change course in Iraq. Still, there is little consensus over how to proceed.

Some Democrats are urging an immediate withdrawal of troops and a drastic reduction in war spending. Others are calling for a gradual re-deployment of troops to move them out of Iraq. Still other Democrats are waiting for Mr. Bush to present his plan before criticizing it.

The expectations set by the elections, Democrats say, present a complicating challenge as they begin to govern.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said he believed that his party lost the White House in 2004 because of Iraq. “My concern now is that too many Democrats are going to want to play it safe on this issue and not take the strong stand that American people demand,” he said Monday.

The pressure from war critics on the Democratic left has been particularly intense. “The bottom line is that they were elected on a mandate to get the nation out of the mess in Iraq,” said Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, a liberal political action committee.

By law, Congress can limit the nature of troop deployments, cap the size of military deployments and cut financing for existing or prospective deployments.

Representative Adam Smith of Washington, vice chairman of the moderate New Democratic Coalition, said he feared that withholding financing — even for new troops being sent to Iraq — could have a detrimental effect on all forces.

Both John Dickerson and Jacob Weisberg of Slate say that the Dems will not stop the “surge”. Is it all political showboating? (Probably not from Kennedy, but who knows…)

My view is that withholding finances would not only be a bad Democratic policy view in the eyes of the American people and would give the White House and GOP an excuse to rally around their causes, but it would also bring the matter of Iraq down to such a low partisan, political mudslinging level. A gradual deployment, by all military strategy standards, would not be a smart move either — it would be inefficient and more damaging than a blitz-like “surge”.

CFR analysis:

President Bush is expected to call for a surge of twenty thousand troops, or five combat brigades, bringing the total number of U.S. forces in Iraq to roughly 160,000. The plan will likely focus on clearing Baghdad and Anbar province of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias with the help of Iraqi—and Kurdish peshmerga—forces and set benchmarks for the Iraqis to meet. A dramatic surge in reconstruction aid would also follow.

I do like the reconstruction bit. Check out the plan on Iraq withdrawal I enforce.

For more enlightenment on the “surge” and what it means, check out this FP article.

Who knows, maybe Bush's plan is just — and only just — recycled rhetoric.

I welcome the aspect of the Kennedy Plan that increases the righteous powers of Congress and puts a damper on the all-too-high (and escalating) powers of the president. Bush has already overreached on the "war on terror" and Iraq enough, its time to call him on it. However, keep in mind the Dems only have a slim majority in the Senate, and their 30-some seat majority in the House of Representatives is such a majority because many of the Democrats who beat Republicans were moderate-conservative Democrats beating moderate Republicans.

Bush's announcement finally comes! BBC News:

US President George W Bush has said he will send more than 20,000 extra troops to Iraq, as part of a new strategy for the future of US involvement.

In an address live on US TV, he said the deployment would help break the cycle of violence and hasten the day when US troops are able to come home.

The situation in Iraq was unacceptable, he said, adding that responsibility for mistakes rested with him.

However, US Democrats says they will oppose any "escalation" of the war.

technorati tags: bush, kennedy, pelosi, moveon, baghdad, iraq, news, surge, troop+surge, iraq+war, in+the+news, politics, democrats, congress, current

Let the swearing [in] begin

Post updated with more information covering President Bush and Congress.

A while back, I wrote an in-depth analysis on the Democrat's win in the US Congress and what is to come in the American political climate. Now, that blog post will be put to the test as the 100th Congress will be sworn in tomorrow, 4 January 2006. Get ready for Congress v. White House for at least the next two years! (As if Congress v. Congress wasn't bad enough.)

As I covered in the aforementioned post, (from The Guardian):

The proposed legislation from the Democrats includes:
· Ethics reform, with a ban on gifts from lobbyists to congressmen and other controls;
· A rise in the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour;
· An end to the Bush administration's restrictions on stem cell research;
· Implementation of the recommendations of the commission on the 9/11 terror attacks;
· A plan for the federal government to negotiate cheaper prices for prescription drugs;
· And the halving of interest rates on student loans.

Many of those items listed are included in the so-called 100 hour plan House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi says she will bring to the table — and work on passing — within her first 100 hours as the first woman speaker of the house, and the first Democrat speaker in over a decade. (Just as a reminder, the speaker is similar to the Senate majority leader, but has more authority, power, etc. leading the lower legislative body, the House of Representatives.)

Also in the article,

President George Bush, who for nearly four years had a free hand in decision-making over the war in Iraq, faces a series of concerted challenges starting from tomorrow from a newly installed and assertive Democratic Congress.

"I think the White House will be answering lots of questions. There will be a blizzard of paper, and I think we are in for a year of examination of administration policy," said Stuart Rothenberg, who publishes a Washington newsletter.

Bush has his war, one of the major reasons the GOP lost in last November's midterm elections. Although economy was another issue say exit polling data and other post-election polls; albeit the economy was largely overlooked by the media in coverage after the election. The Democrats — well, Pelosi at least — have positive, progressive initiatives (those outlined above) that I for one want passed, but not only do the moderate-liberal Democrats have the White House and presidential veto as a stopper on this legislative road-map, but there are also conservative factions in the Democratic party that will not stand for some of the goals outlined by Pelosi and company.

It's hard to tell if this will be a strictly Pelosi v. Bush battle, but time will tell. Gridlock, as we all know, is an imminent fact. It's the seriousness of the gridlock and how it is dealt with that will be the major looming matters for Americans and their government.

One main thing the president says he wants to do is keep pork-barrel — 'earmark', unneeded costly legislation — to a minimum. The president has had plenty of chances to veto legislation that is bad and useless (pork-barrel spending too), but he has not used his veto then. Instead, Bush wastes it on a stem cell research bill that Congress and the American public opinion approved (MSNBC)!

Bush has been criticized from both sides for failing to keep big spending bills from being passed, what makes people think he will act any different now? This also zaps his credibility, although it was already mostly zapped on a large variety of issues — including dealing with Congress and the balance of [presidential] power in areas like wiretapping in the "war on terror". How can the American public expect him to hold to his 'working with Congress' word if he talks nonsense about a power he has never righteously executed?

President Bush also spoke of a plan to be able to balance the federal budget without raising taxes by 2012. Since he has already unbalanced the budget enough, I dunno if that would be hard or easy, impossible or feasible.

And as if signing statements were not bad enough... (NYT):

[Bush] also repeated his desire for legislation giving the president the power to delete individual provisions from spending bills, known as a line-item veto — a power that Congress, even when controlled by the same party as the president, has refused to grant.

Okay people, all this BS-talk of bipartisanship is over — or should be as of the 4th — and will be falling to its regular, previous levels once the real political battles begin. Bipartisan is only a word of phony rhetoric for American politicians; not a practice. Pelosi and a few other Democrats — and Republicans — have voiced their stance on the two parties (Democrat and Republican) and branches of government (executive and legislative) working together, especially on things they both agree on. But the obviously fabricated rhetoric streaming from the President Bush's mouth following the Democratic win has been amazing — and obviously not representative of his true intentions (it is politics after all). Even now, right before the new Congress convenes. BBC News:

US President George W Bush has urged his Democratic rivals to work with the White House, a day before the opening of a new session of Congress.

Speaking at the White House, Mr Bush called on Democrats "to set aside politics and look to the future".

The Democratically-led 100th United States Congress will be sworn in tomorrow, and, contrary to the president's bridge-building past (when he was governor of Texas, apparantly), there are already plenty of battles looming on the horizon for executive-legislative (White House-Capital Hill, presidential-Congressional) relations.

“We hope that when the president says compromise, it means more than ‘do it my way,’ which is what he’s meant in the past,” Mr. Schumer said.

Great quote by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in a New York Times article that covers the upcoming Congress and its relation to the White House.

--
Song stuck in my head right now: "This River is Wild" by The Killers.

technorati tags: bush, george+w+bush, pelosi, nancy+pelosi, house+speaker, democrats, republicans, congress, 110th+congress, white+house, politics, united+states, usa, swearing+in+congress, news, in+the+news, elections, midterm+elections, analysis, guardian

Oh how the mighty have fallen: Saddam is dead

Saddam Hussein, former Iraqi leader convicted of crimes against humanity, has been executed this morning for crimes against humanity — just before dawn Iraq time (see Wikipedia). A slew of news analysis and historical tidbits have resurfaced, with the wide view that his death will be of little real significance for the situation in Iraq and the wider Middle East. If anything, Saddam's death outlines how his trial went — and failed — and the effects will be of historical symbolism and the small group of Saddam's Baathist loyalists up in arms while many celebrate. First of all, hanging a person is not the greatest way to start a country's legal system; the ensuing celebrations (from Iraqis and those US government) do not help frame the nation as all-too-well either, as if the violence did not already show Iraq to be in deep, serious strife. The reactions have largely been mixed.

The trial of Saddam Hussein and some of his closest minions was supposed to show Iraqis how bad their former regime had been and how a trial and the legal system should operate. It was all a judicial disgrace. More than a handful of countries seem to think that the execution will — if anything — increase the problems in Iraq. It is not going to have a positive effect, that's for sure. I should say that I am not at all a proponent of capital punishment.
—————
As I mentioned in my previous post on Saddam's impending execution, Saddam is one of several horrible former heads of state who have died this year. There was an extensive Atlantic Monthly article from 2002 profiling the dictator Saddam, who is to be buried with his brothers.
—————
What will the hanging of Saddam Hussein accomplish? What was it meant to accomplish — besides killing Saddam, that is. Between 5:30 and 5:45 (AM) local Iraqi time, the hanging took place. The era of Saddam’s domination in Iraq is now definitely over; he ruled absolutely for nearly 25 years before being overthrown in the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The execution was videoed to quash doubts that the execution was staged, though the actual act of hanging was not photographed (only before and after). “A dark chapter in Iraq’s history has come to an end” said Iraq state media while reporting the execution of Saddam. The immediate aftermath of the execution yielded little reaction in the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad. As word spread of Saddam’s death, some small crowds formed in celebration, a minority mourning the death of their former leader. One can only hope that the book of Saddam is really closed and that no new complications — such as a worse-than-expected reaction from Sunni Iraqis — will spring up as a result of the hanging. Initial media reports said that Saddam was killed alongside his half brother and a judge from his regime, both tried alongside him, though those reports were found to be erroneous. The judge and the half brother will be executed after the Eid holiday.
—————
Rehabilitation certainly would not have been a judicial option for his crimes, but his execution was not just either — nor is the state or otherwise unwarranted killing of a human being (e.g. not for self defense, etc.). Saddam Hussein: a power figure, a murderer and torturer, a danger to regional security, an overall bad man — but as a human being capital punishment should not have been executed (pun) upon him. I will not miss him, and I hope few or no others do, but that does not mean I am content with his hanging or the effects it will bring to an already destabilized — to say the least — region. Most emotions had already been expressed over the merits and failures in the man of Saddam Hussein, so many of the reactions to the news of his hanging are expected.
—————
Saddam Hussein’s trial, which started in 2005 and ended earlier this year, was supposed to show Iraqis how their leader had poorly led them; the crimes he had committed. The trial was also supposed to illustrate an atypical example of the criminal justice and legal systems for the fledgling Iraqi government and citizens being introduced to ‘democracy’. The failures of this trial — on a human rights, legal, and political scale — are momentous enough to make this “example” trial have a negative affect on Iraq. It was a botched trial, it is believed that the display of ‘justice’ did not even teach the Iraqis or their government anything about how a justice system is supposed to work. The long list of additional charges against Saddam will either be dismissed or will be filed and brought against him in his absence [post mortem]. The latter would be ridiculous, I think history has already made its judgment and there is no reason for the Iraqi judiciary to further ridicule itself. The decision on the other charges against Saddam and how the government is to go about treating them is yet to be announced. The “new direction” for Iraq was a heavily rhetoricized American political plan which emphasized the positive points that trying and convicting Saddam would bring — namely a national unity against Saddam, making at least some unity. However, that “new direction” outcome was about as good as the neoconservative doctrine that got the US to invade Iraq in the first place. “National reconciliation” was another key political point, which was minimized by the botched trial of Saddam and the subsequent hasty decision to execute him.
—————
I am reading — among other things — a book called The J Curve. The author, Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer, wrote an article a while back using parts of the chapter of his book on Saddam's Iraq (which I just finished).

You can learn a lot about a country by looking at the relationship between its stability and its "openness." Stability is a measure of the extent to which a country's government can weather a political, economic or social crisis. Openness is a measure of the degree to which people, ideas, information, goods and services flow freely in both directions across a state's borders and within the country itself.

Some countries (the United States, Germany, Japan and many others) are stable because they are open. Other states (North Korea, Cuba, Iran and others) are stable because they are closed. In each of these closed states, a small governing elite has isolated the country's citizens from the outside world and from one another. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was stable because it was closed. President Bush hopes the new Iraq will be stable because it is open.

Imagine a graph on which the vertical axis measures a state's stability and the horizontal axis measures its openness. Each nation appears as a data point on the graph. Taken together, these data points produce a pattern very much like the letter J. Nations higher on the graph are more stable; those lower are less stable. Nations to the right of the dip in the J are more open. Those to the left are less open.

For a country on the closed left side of the curve to move to the open right side, it must pass through the dip in the J -- a period of dangerous instability. In the early 1990s, South Africa, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia each descended into this dip. South Africa re-emerged on the right side of the J curve as an open post-apartheid state. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia came apart and ceased to exist.

Right-side states have a collective interest in helping to shepherd authoritarian left-side states through the unstable dip in the curve toward a stability that is sturdier because it is based on openness. The Bush administration hopes to achieve just this kind of transition in Iraq.

In the spring of 2003, the United States pushed Iraq into the dip in the J curve.

The Bush administration finds itself in this position because it ignored one of the fundamental lessons of the J curve: it's one thing to destabilize an isolated authoritarian state; it's quite another to transform it into a country in which political and social stability is grounded in the free flow of ideas, information, trade and people.

That's something that Iraqis will one day have to do on their own.

The situation in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam, there is no question about that.
—————
One interesting thing is how Saddam stayed in power through his foreign policy disasters, including the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 — which he lost — and the skirmishes with Iran throughout the 1980s (and other dates), namely the Iran-Iraq War — of which no one really won. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of Saddam’s tight and ruthless, and paranoid, stay-in-power policies, his attacks on Kurds and other ethnic and political factions resisting him, and from the stringent sanctions placed on Iraq [by the US]. Saddam lived a life of harming others for his own gain; for his thirst for power and to retain that power. He ruled by fear.
—————
Now a problem is that Iran is as powerful as ever, extending their Shia influence into Iraq too (Iraq's leading coalition is of the Shia Islam sect, Iran is a Shia Islamic state). Saddam — a Sunni — kept Iraq a major stabilizer in the Sunni-Shia Middle Eastern power vacuum. Now, Iran is almost unchecked in power at a time when it is taunting the international community. Also, the Sunni elite that used to run Iraq were dismissed in disastrous American policies in Iraq, increasing the number of guys with money, power/influence, and guns — three things that those former Baath party elites had. This made the ensuing insurgency all the more strong and make Shia-Sunni tensions build up to a high level of civil war that Iraq is in today.
—————
The New York Times had an excellent editorial on the subject.

The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity. The public record is bulging with the lengthy litany of his vile and unforgivable atrocities: genocidal assaults against the Kurds; aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait; use of internationally banned weapons like nerve gas; systematic torture of countless thousands of political prisoners.

What really mattered was whether an Iraq freed from his death grip could hold him accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future. A carefully conducted, scrupulously fair trial could have helped undo some of the damage inflicted by his rule. It could have set a precedent for the rule of law in a country scarred by decades of arbitrary vindictiveness. It could have fostered a new national unity in an Iraq long manipulated through its religious and ethnic divisions.

It could have, but it didn’t. After a flawed, politicized and divisive trial, Mr. Hussein was handed his sentence: death by hanging. This week, in a cursory 15-minute proceeding, an appeals court upheld that sentence and ordered that it be carried out posthaste. Most Iraqis are now so preoccupied with shielding their families from looming civil war that they seem to have little emotion left to spend on Mr. Hussein or, more important, on their own fading dreams of a new and better Iraq.

What might have been a watershed now seems another lost opportunity. After nearly four years of war and thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, it is ever harder to be sure whether anything fundamental has changed for the better in Iraq.

Toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won’t either.

technorati tags: saddam+hussein, saddam+executed, saddam+dead, breaking-news, news, iraq, death+penalty, politics, opinion, analysis, middle+east, justice, new+york+times, dictator, saddam+hang, hanging, capital+punishment, legal, government, united+states, american, usa, saddam+trial, obituary, court