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

More spending vetoes in the works?

White House: more spending on education and health care is bad — bad enough to warrant a rarely-used veto. Another great move by the Bush administration... The Democrats in Congress want to increase the federal budget by about $20 billion. Not it's the increase that's good — because it isn't — but what they hope to increase are the same programs the White House wished to decrease in the last budget it proposed: domestic programs like education and healthcare. Neither branch's version of the fiscal year 2008 budget is perfect, and both have their strengths.

The new Iraq war funding compromise bill may also be vetoed by the president. This bill is a revised vision of the funding bill proposed by Congress, and vetoed by the president (in what was only his second veto ever), earlier this month. Both have been locking horns more than ever ever since.

On a related note, largely due to the wrangling over the mess that is Iraq, Congress and the White House both have about the same (low) approval rating by the American public — in the 30%s.

technorati tags: poll+bush+congress+approval+ratings, iraq+war+bill, veto+iraq+bill, bush+veto+budget, democrats, domestic+spending, congress, bush, white+house, funding

Breaking the GOP mould

Two Republican candidates are starting to try to break free from their party's unofficial but common political principles as the race for the presidency in the 2008 election intensifies. Poll leader Rudy Giuliani is still emphasizing his liberal stance on issues like abortion; and Mitt Romney, seen recently kissing up like many of his peers to the religious right, bashes the Bush administration on Iraq.

John McCain appears to represent a conservative faction, not to extreme. He also still seems content with keeping the status quo on issues like Iraq — many voters won't like that. Just as Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion, and believes in gun control and gay rights, McCain has a traditional American center-right viewpoint on such issues, often not describing his true policy and saying political decisions like the aforementioned should be left to the individual states to decide.

technorati tags: mitt+romney, rudy+giuliani, republicans, 2008+presidential+election, president+US+election, GOP+president, john+mccain, american+conservative, abortion, iraq, bush

Setting bad examples

Evidence of torture in Israeli prisons. More faults in Israeli PR; or, how to annoy your already peeved neighbors.

Also, American troops condone torture, blamed in part on the long serving periods for US soldiers in Iraq. Vice President Cheney, touring the Middle East — which won't really help anything diplomatically — spoke in defense of these extended deployments.

Neither case of abuse by the militaries of two countries so despised in the Mid-East are all that new news, but both will inflame, and continue to inflame, those effected or who feel violated in the Middle East, thus perception plays more into extremism. Extremists will no doubt use the despicable actions by Israel and the US's armed forces to try to gain public support and recruit against two forces seen as evil.

Blair sets date for departure

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced he will leave office on 27 June.

He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been very lucky to lead "the greatest nation on earth".

He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader - widely expected to be Gordon Brown.

In an emotional speech, Mr Blair said he had been prime minister for 10 years which was "long enough" for the country and himself.

He thanked the British people for their support and apologised for when "I have fallen short".

(See also speech in full.)

Blair has done a lot of good, Northern Ireland and living standards come to mind, but also a lot of bad, namely by buddying up with the Bush administration in its 'war on terror' and passing questionable anti-terror laws as well as entering the Iraq war. One thing arguably good or bad was his reforming of the Labour Party.

Blair is a charismatic, intelligent leader, who seems to believe what he enacts. The UK's National Health Service has not been made much better, one of the major domestic hot topics that has faced the Blair occupation of No. 10 this past decade. The economy is doing better and education has seen some noticeable changes. He brought transparent, democratic government initiatives such as the Prime Minister's Questions, which I personally like immensely, but Blair also brought about some civil liberties crushing anti-terror reforms following the attacks on 9/11 and 7/7.

Labour has suffered defeat lately in local elections, especially in those of Scotland — a rebuke to the Blarite leadership? The fact of the matter is he's needed to leave for a while now, and his announcement today comes as no surprise.

As historians point out, Tony Blair has political savvy, he did work towards ridding Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, but he also brought the power of the PM to a "presidential" level.

What happens next?

Current Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown is likely to take over.

These days Mr Brown likes to talk about Britishness, which he sees as the fount of shared values that can bind society together. It often sounds a bit stilted. But of one thing Mr Brown is convinced: like him, the British care passionately about fairness. If he is right, and if he can find the words to express it (both big ifs), the voters may in time decide that there is something in this strange, clumsy, powerful champion of social justice that they find, if not likeable, at least admirable.

How long he will last is another question, but he is certainly qualified. Blair finally endorced Brown earlier this month for the job, and no serious contenders within Labour seem to have arisen.

Brown is an interesting man nonetheless. For one thing he is Scottish, which worries some English nationalists and xenophobes.

The not-so-conservative David Cameron, Conservative Party leader, is the greatest threat to Brown. On one hand he does not want to call a general election so soon (the last one was in 2005; they are generally five or so years apart), and by the way Labour is going Brown would probably loose. On the other hand he doesn't want people to look at him as a dictatorial-like successor to Blair, especially as the conservative media has labeled him "Stalinist" after his latest budget.

Rightfully, Blair has admitted the "blow-back" from Iraq. There has also been blowback at home from his Middle East excursions. Hopefully Brown will keep a more independent, yet international and liberal/centrist, foreign policy.

Farewell Tony. The end of the Blairite New Labour era — with all its ups and downs — is nearing. As Labour is down in the polls and the UK faces a number of important issues, a new, strong political leader is needed. Hopefully Brown will be able to step up to the plate. He has waited long enough.

technorati tags: tony+blair, downing+street, gordon+brown, david+cameron, labour+party, united+kingdom, blair+PM+resignation, prime+minister, news, iraq

How to let an alleged terrorist off the hook...

More horrible American hypocrisy in the 'war on terror' involving a real terrorist — Luis Posada Carriles.

BBC News:

A US judge has dropped immigration charges against a Cuban exile, Luis Posada Carriles, who has been accused of blowing up a Cuban airliner.

Mr Posada, 79, was detained in May 2005 after entering the US illegally, but was released on bail last month.

A former CIA employee, he is wanted in Venezuela and Cuba over the downing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 in which 73 people died. He denies involvement.

US authorities have ruled out returning him to Cuba or Venezuela.
...
His lawyer, Felipe Millan, said the judge had ruled that statements by Mr Posada that were to be used against him had been obtained illegally.
...
US justice department spokesman Dean Boyd said: "We're reviewing the decision."

How hard is it to botch immigration charges? Compared to terrorism charges, it's pretty simple. I mean, honestly...

Posada is suspected of committing one of the worst terrorist acts in Latin American history. Apparantly — and this was in the height of the Cold War, where many innocents' blood was spilled at the hands of two great powers fighting via vague proxy — the United States knew ahead of time of the attack.

The Economist:

The Justice Department claims it did everything it could to dissuade the judge from ordering Mr Posada's release. “We can't just unilaterally order a person to be held,” a spokesman said. But critics point out that the government frequently does just that under the anti-terrorist Patriot Act.
...
Prosecutors say that he lied about how he returned to the United States in 2005 in order to protect fellow Cuban exiles in Miami who helped smuggle him in by boat. That may prove to be his undoing. But the failure to extradite him may make other countries warier of collaborating with American justice.

For once an almost certainly bona-fide terrorist can be put to justice, but he is not. Is that what America's GWOT symbolizes? Political hypocrisy and looking the other way? That just plays into the hands of the US's enemies — whether 'communist' or Qaeda — and is no doubt more bad PR possibly increasing the severity of attacks against America. The US did enough harm to Latin America in its previous 'war'. Isn't it time for justice before relations deteriorate further, and people like Hugo Chavez gain the upper hand?

Alas, Posada's health has taken a turn for the worse, which probably played a role in the judge's ruling on his release. While it's probably never too late for justice, the US missed its chance on showing its southern neighbors it wasn't all talk and hypocrisy.

This story — like several others of the Cold War — resembles a conspiracy spy movie-like plot, and it looks like our main character may yet get away with the acts he committed. It is the fault for the government back then for not stopping him, or even urging him; and the fault of the government now for not ending this chapter of a story that should have ended long ago.

technorati tags: Luis+Posada+Carriles, united+states, terrorism, war+On+terror, politics, justice, cold+war, cuba

More Sudanese deception

There is yet more blood on the hands of the Sudanese government and its backers as an Amnesty International report reveals.

Amnesty International has accused Sudan of violating a UN arms embargo on Darfur and is "dismayed" at Russian and Chinese arms supplies to Khartoum.
...
Amnesty says Sudan is "continuing to divert and deploy imported attack and other military aircraft... as well as firearms and ammunition... to target civilians directly".
...
"The use of all-white aircraft and helicopters... in Darfur is in violation of applicable norms of international humanitarian law."
...
The UN report, a leaked copy of which reached the New York Times this month, said Sudan was painting aircraft white to make them look like UN planes.

It had pressured the government into seemingly caving in and allowing UN peacekeepers in, but the promise seems moot. The level on which Sudan's government has hurt its own people is almost immeasurable.

Khartoum is not the only government to blame, as Russia and China both make matters worse. China has close ties to Sudan, mainly because of oil. I don't know Russia's excuse.

If the US had not deteriorated its international standing by poor diplomatic moves in the 'war on terror' — which spawned the war in Iraq — more might be done to help the people of Darfur. Of course America has also helped another state get around international legal conditions: North Korea and its sanctions-violating weapons sales to Ethiopia, which is apparently helping fight 'terrorism' in Somalia — by making it worse.

Update:
In a very (not) surprising move, China and Russia both denied supplying Sudan with weapons.

The ugly side of French democracy

I guess Royal was right in predicting and warning of the ensuing (leftist youth) violence following a Sarkozy win in the French presidential election...


Image credits: Reuters and Robert Pratta (top), Reuters and Gonzalo Fuentes (bottom).

Reuters:

Hundreds of people were arrested in France overnight in clashes between police and protesters angry over conservative Nicolas Sarkozy's victory in Sunday's presidential election, police said.

Official figures released on Monday said demonstrators set fire to 730 cars and injured 78 policemen across France, with 592 people arrested in the violent protests against the tough-talking former interior minister.

The tally was revised sharply upwards after an initial report appeared to downplay the clashes and was at odds with local police figures and eyewitness reports, which suggested widespread troubles in numerous French cities.

The probably all too powerful French unions are also disgruntled by the center-right interior minister's victory in the Sunday polls. He aims for a more global France — which is good — and US President George Bush seems pleased with the success of his French counterpart.

Back in the US...

Now that the French presidential election is over, there's another leadership race to focus on. Although it is still far away, the 2008 US presidential election is kicking into gear, with headline-grabbing (inter-party) debates already grabbing headlines — and fundraising through the roof.

Here's an update on what the candidates have been doing...

Romney courts the religious right. Expect more candidates of all stripes to have to do the same (McCain already has), as the religious right demographic is crucial, especially for Republicans.

GOP candidates united on war, divided on social issues in Reagan Library debate last week. Poll leader Giuliani sticks out among social conservatives in the Republican debate.

Fred Thompson, a viable contender or not, has policies much like those of John McCain, whose uninspiring campaign seems to have withered even more. However, John Dickerson points out the problems Thopmson — who seems to have a fair amount of support — and his supporters face, if he indeed intends to run in the race to succeed George Bush.

The Washington Post on Obama and the race gap. Just shows how Americans still focus all too much on race. It shouldn’t matter.

John Edwards gets it right, discredits 'war on terror' politicial phrase.

Campaign-hardened Republicans used to treat the phrase "global war on terror" so casually, even affectionately, that they talked about "the G-WOT," after the four-letter abbreviation used in White House calendars to denote Iraq messaging meetings. Democrats embraced it, too, with John Kerry asserting during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention: "We are a nation at war, a global war on terror."
But increasingly the phrase is being regarded with hostility by many Democrats, who view it as little more than propaganda, and with a degree of skepticism by some Republicans, who consider it tired and vague. The left lobe of the blogosphere roared its approval in March when the House Budget Committee directed its staff to eschew "global war on terror" and instead use more precise language like "the war in Iraq" and "ongoing military operations throughout the world." And last month the British government announced that it too had retired the phrase.
Now Kerry's former running mate is declaring his independence from a phrase that politicians have been brandishing with brio for more than five years. At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"
Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase."
"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do," Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. "It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."

The Economist profiles Rudy Giuliani and his campaign.

Hillary Clinton, among others, listed on the Time 100 most influential people "who shape our world" list — yet George W. Bush isn’t?

Obama preaches about fuel efficiency to American auto companies, saying Japanese firms have done a much better job in making their cars more eco-friendly and less energy-relient. A bold move?

technorati tags: john+edwards, hillary+clinton, war+on+terror, 2008+US+presidental+election, rudy+giuliani, mitt+romney, john+mccain, fred+thompson, republican+debate, time+100, politics, barak+obama, race

What next for Sarkozy?

Change and reform are arguably the underlying topics of this election, encapsulating everything from governmental reform to economic liberalization to law and order and immigration.

Now that he has seemingly won the election, one must hope Sarkozy does not continue to court the far-right. He must actually reform and drop a fair bit of xenophobia, as well as convince France that the EU is not a political demon. He must tackle crime and poverty at home, and the many troubles — such as those in the Middle East — abroad. He must follow through with his promises of liberalizing the economy and opening up the markets; allowing a private sector to flourish while embracing the global economic phenomenon that many other developed countries have used to much success. He must bring France to the forefront of world powers, allowing his nation its rightful place high on the international stage. He must work with the United Nations. Sarkozy must not become too close to the United States for his political sake, but he must also cut through the anti-American mould so attributed to his country. He must open up the bureaucracy, the economic regulations, and the minds of France to a liberalized, multi-cultural, global nation — a member of the UN Security Council, founding member of the European Union, and one of the G8 nations. At the same time he must keep his political capital in check and act appropriately and ethically, unlike some of his predecessors.

Assuming he has indeed won the election, Sarkozy will enter office when Chirac's term expires on 16 May.

technorati tags: nicolas+sarkozy, french+presidential+election+2007, france+election+2007, president+france, chirac, politics, united+states, global+france, sarkozy+reform, EU

Le prochain président de la France: Nicolas Sarkozy

Nicolas Sarkozy is the winner of France's presidential election, say early results.

Sarkozy has vowed for change. His Socialist challenger, Segolene Royal, has conceded defeat and thanked the 17 million who voted for her.

BBC News:

Mr Sarkozy is estimated to have won 53% of the vote, compared to 47% for socialist Segolene Royal.

The turnout was the highest in decades at 85.5%.
...
Mr Sarkozy has promised to try to reform France to face the challenges of the 21st century, with putting the nation back to work at the top of his agenda.

But the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says he will have to work hard to unite the French, and try to win round those who voted against him.

More than 3,000 police have been deployed in Paris and its multi-ethnic suburbs in case Mr Sarkozy's victory sparks a repeat of the riots seen in 2005.

technorati tags: nicolas+sarkozy, segolene+royal, france+president+electio+2007

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

Scottish nationalists get what they want

As a follow-up to this post on Scottish independence and the state of the Union of the Great Britain...

Reuters:

Scottish nationalists committed to independence from Britain became the biggest party in the Scottish parliament on Friday in elections which left a political headache for Prime Minister Tony Blair's successor.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) ended 50 years of Labor dominance in Scotland in Thursday's vote and Labor suffered heavy losses in local council elections in England and lesser losses in elections to the devolved Welsh assembly.

With Blair expected to announce next week he is stepping down as prime minister after a decade in power, he leaves a poisoned chalice to finance minister Gordon Brown, the 56-year-old Scot who is almost certain to succeed him.

The confusing victory for SNP was riddled with technical difficulties. The Nationalists have a very thin majority: 47 to Labour's 46 in the Scottish Parliament. Political analysis of these latest developments reveal a great fracture in the political climate in Britain.

Middle East diplomacy (part 1): another Iraq summit

Diplomatic relations with such a tumultuous region can be hard to maintain at times, but keeping the channels of communication open is essential in order to help fix the problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere. In addition, discussion with states like Syria and Iran can resolve ongoing tensions. Unlike war, diplomacy is soft and does not always produce immediate effects. Some are dissatisfied with the outcome of diplomacy, but also unlike war there are few instances where diplomacy actually hurts the problem one or both sides wish to resolve.

I supported US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent (unofficial, non-policy related) diplomatic trip to Syria. By isolating Syria, this current administration has forced it nearer to Iran — by no means a positive influence. Lucky for the US, Syria is open to working with America and has an interest in the outcome of the current civil conflict in Iraq as well as the spread radical Islamic terrorism. The Syrians have even more to worry about political stability against terrorists than the US, also. The Iraq Study Group and many members of Congress have urged the White House to talk to Syria before relations deteriorate further and Iraq gets even worse.

Yesterday US Secretary of State Condi Rice met with the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, in a much-needed discussion. At the top of the agenda was Iraq, and Syria's borders — which many extremists cross through to enter Iraq — were also an issue.

The 30-minute session with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem marks a diplomatic turning point for the Bush administration, which had resisted talks with Syria and Iran despite the recommendations of allies abroad and the Iraq Study Group and lawmakers from both parties at home.

The meeting was the first direct, official, and high-level talks between Syria, which President Bush has labeled an 'evil' state, and the United States in years. While some call talks like this 'talking with the enemy', Rice said her discussion with the Syrian FM was "professional", and that "I didn't lecture him and he didn't lecture me." However positive this news might be, signs are yet to reveal themselves of direct talks between the US and Iran. America came close to talking to its Persian arch-nemisis, but an official diplomatic discussion never panned out.

Both the U.S. and Iran had sounded interested, even eager, to improve on nearly three decades of name-calling and accusations. U.S. diplomats had pointed to the seaside conference about Iraq's future as a possible opening, and Iran's hardline president welcomed talks.

In the end, neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki wanted to make the first move.

This discussion came during a conference in Egypt on the Iraq issue. Iran and Syria are both in attendance, as America finally showed a more logical and less stubborn diplomatic policy in similar talks on Iraq in late March. One development that comes as no surprise: Iran blames the US for Iraq's woes, which is only partially correct.

This summit on Iraq has resulted in an International Compact for Iraq (ICI), a five-year plan for financial help and 'national reconciliation' for Iraq. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon placed the stated 'financial commitments' to Iraq at over $30 billion. The conference included delegations from the United States, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and the European Union.

technorati tags: condi+rice, ban+ki-moon, iraq, international+compact+for+iraq, middle+east, syria, iran, diplomacy

Olmert's political losses

Ehud Olmert is a man with a problem — well, several problems in fact. He is the prime minister of a nuclear state, a world player in fact, with many security troubles and political conundrums. His country gets more attention than most; and the majority of his neighbors resent the country he governs. Olmert is the prime minister of Israel. He faces many problems: investigations into the ethics of his administration; the loss of political support within his new centrist party as well as in the wider population; frequent acts of terror from both inside and outside Israel's borders — among other issues. His personal goals — namely the much needed Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank — are in shambles and his nations external security is looking as bleak as ever. America seems to be the only steadfast ally, and even it is hinting at doubt in Israel's handling of itself and Olmert's handling of Israel. Every foreign policy move Olmert makes might find itself under international scrutiny.

So why is this flaring up all of the sudden? A panel released its findings of last summer's torrential Israeli-Lebanese war (i.e. the 2006 Lebanon War), which was mainly a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel's defense forces. (From the start the battle was seen as poorly executed, and this is a result of a major inquiry.) Lebanon is still unstable following the skirmish of summer 2006. Israel took the militant group's bait, and now Israel is seen as even more of an aggressor against innocents — in the Arab Muslim world as well as abroad.

An Israeli government commission excoriated Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday for "severe failures" in last summer's war against the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, setting off a furious debate on whether he should remain in office.

The commission accused him of having decided hastily to go to war, neglecting to ask for a detailed military plan, refusing to consult outside the army and setting "over-ambitious and unobtainable goals."

Israel's political troubles are vast and wide. In its parliament, the Knesset, parties must gain power often by forming coalitions, many times with more extreme factions of the Israeli politik. Israelis also doubt how pulling out of Palestinian territories will help — they think the attacks will continue nonetheless just as some Palestinians fail to rationalize how a stop in the fighting will help them too.

Israel's policy towards Palestine is a prime example of the fire paradox at work: in fighting terrorism, Israel has created more. For example, Hezbollah's support has arguably grown following last year's conflict with Israel, which killed many civilians, left even more scared, and destroyed all too much. Hezbollah, fueled by funds from Iran, helped rebuild and aided civilians. However, some view Hezbollah's moves as haphazard and blame it for sparking the conflict with Israel. That launched a perpetual drive of terrorism and recruiters take advantage of the poor, hopeless, yet angered, Palestinians. And its a two-way street. There are also plenty of militant extremists within Israel, extra-Zionists, so to speak, who think the world is theirs for the taking, and Israel should not fail to resort to heavy military means when attacked.

How to fight the terror? Sending tanks into a neighborhood of Lebanon (home to Hezbollah) or Palestine (home to Hamas) that is already angry because its power and water supplies are cut off, and the bridge is blown up, does not help. There is also the issue of the politics within Israel's neighboring states. Would Israel rather moderate Islamic rule in its Arab neighbors, or dictatorships which are more of a hotbed for terror?

If Israel really wanted to take back its captured soldiers in Southern Lebanon and Palestine last summer, black ops or special forces could have gotten the job done much better. Now there are ever more terrorists, terrorist supporters, and potential terrorists wanting to get their revenge on the state who they feel harmed them and their people. Both the Israelis and their neighbors are also scared, and there are plenty of examples of how people act amazingly irrational when scared.

If Olmert is forced out or his political condition worsens, there are multiple fears about the potential repercussions:

A more conservative government might take power, and institute policies only making the Palestinian issue worse and not act in the true national interest;

Groups like Hezbollah will see it as a victory and will launch future, more powerful attacks;

Israel's domestic political situation will be very bad, to say the least;

Olmert, if still in office, will have to make concessions to conservative Israelis or political groups in order to stay in office, thus worsening the situation.

The execution of the war in Lebanon was botched from the start. Who is to blame? Should Olmert be forced out because of his government’s poor decision making, which costed and affected hundreds of thousands of Lebanese lives, not to mention many Israelis, and increased the tension between his country and its Middle Eastern neighbors, and the international community. The strategy also proved to be counter-intuitive and might yet breed more terrorism. Israelis should take note of these major mistakes, and in the future strive for not repeating them.

For now it looks like Olmert's job is secure. But with new protests, it's anyone's guess. One outcome could be a (more) hawkish, right-wing party — more conservative than Likud — winning over support from Olmert's ruling centrist Kadima party.

technorati tags: ehud+olmert, israel, hezbollah, hamas, terrorism, lebanon, middle+east, arab+israeli, 2006+lebanon+war, olmert+political+israel, palestine

Democracy or secularism? Can Turkey have both?

While the US is having trouble with its president, Turkey’s been having presidential troubles of its own, so to speak. The vote in parliament nearly one week ago to elect a president has been annulled as the candidate did not reach the required majority, in part because he was of an Islamist party. Because of these problems, the leading Turkish party, AK, wants early elections on 22 July.

You might think the latest developments in Turkey are confusing. Well you’re not alone. See here for The Guardian's Q&A guide for a point by point explanation.

Turkey has worked hard to retain the secular legacy of its first and most famous modern leader, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Many times the military has intervened to ensure that secularism, and this is a major test for Turkey's democracy. The outcome of this string of events may indeed also change when and if Turkey can (rightfully) join the European Union. Some consider Turkey a part of Asia and the Middle East, but more include Turkey among European countries. Turkey is a long-time western ally and a member of NATO.

I both wish for secular governance and a democratic, non-military led administration in Turkey or anywhere else. The question is, which is a greater evil: military intervention every time the army sees fit, or moderate Islamic rule? The ardent secularists are afraid of political control by religious parties; the Islamic parties, and the ardent Turkish democrats, are wary of military intervention.

Presidential candidates debate

Interesting debate between Democratic candidates for the 2008 election in South Carolina a few days ago. No clear winner, but the consensus is that Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton did well. Near-unknown Gravel and a-bit-more-known Kucinich both represented a more left-wing viewpoint, but less popular, fringe of the party. There was ample Bush bashing and an array of Iraq war criticism.

France’s Royal and Sarkozy (see Sarkozy v. Royal) also dished out fighting words in their presidential debate. This Sunday, the second and final round of the election will take place, and France will choose either Sarkozy or Royal as president. Far-right Le Pen, who was defeated in the first round, urged his voters to abstain from voting in the upcoming polls, which will help the Royal team and hurt center-right Sarkozy.

technorati tags: mike+gravel, dennis+kucinish, hillary+clinton, segolene+royal, nicolas+sarkozy, french+presidential+election+2007, democrats+debate+south+carolina, 2008+US+presidential+election

Bush's second veto

President George Bush has just vetoed the bill Democrats worked so hard on passing. The bill required US troop withdrawal from Iraq and was only sent to the White House today after being signed by House Speaker Pelosi. A step back in US Iraq policy? Probably.

Chances are also this will work against Bush, however there is also a chance this could blowback to the Democrats; some are seeing their maneuvers against the White House as in poor taste. Either the Democrats or Bush could also be blamed for the politically charged motive of cutting off funding to the troops — and both have been blamed for doing so. Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino blamed it all on the Dems, saying they are exploiting the troops in a "PR stunt" because of the specially anniversary today. It is four years to the date that Bush proclaimed the "mission accomplished" in Iraq. What a happy May Day anniversary...

Bush's first veto was of something most of the public, and a decent majority in Congress, believed in: stem cell research. Certainly this veto isn't against the experts in the topic relating to the vetoed bill, nor is troop withdrawal from Iraq as popular as life-saving scientific research, but Bush is still, yet again, using his veto power to defy the public will. (Referendum time? Maybe not.) But Bush has to face his demons some time.

What's funny is that this is a man who has attacked Congress for not slimming down bills and cutting pork-barrel or ear-mark (unneeded, excessive) spending, and yet he hasn't once used his veto for a good cause like that! His veto gives him the power to force Congress to modify the bill so it can pass.

The history of presidential powers and vetoing is interesting.

See also my ideal Iraq withdrawal plan.

technorati tags: bush+veto, george+bush, democrats+iraq, Iraq+troop+withdrawal+bill

Blowback: then, now, and in the years to come

A term used to describe the detrimental side effects — unintended by the US — of the current American fight in the civil war in Iraq is 'blowback'. Blowback is similar to the fire paradox in that they share the same premise: in fighting something, be it a war or insurgent terrorists in general, the opposite of intended outcomes are realized. Blowback is more specific to the fire paradox, because the fire paradox can be applied to, as used as an example in this paper, how certain policies in the 'war on terrorism' just create more terrorism. However, blowback can also be used to describe a case where terrorists are bred.

An article in Foreign Affairs presented the blowback argument — revisited. "Today's insurgents are tomorrow's terrorists,” the authors, Peter Bergen and Alec Reynolds, said. They also shared the parallels between America helping Afghan terrorists in what could effectively be described as a proxy war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and the current US involvement in Iraq. The jihadist success in Afghanistan, which succeeded in forcing the Soviets to withdrawal, resulted in a worldwide surge in similar terrorist movements in the name of Islam.

Just as Palestine has been a breeding ground for terrorists — linked with others (mostly Arab Muslims) united against Israel — because of their plight, Iraq too is becoming the next major front for terrorist recruitment, more against America than ever. Some of this terrorism is targeted at the foreign troops, some at the weak Iraqi government, and some is just to stir up the sectarian violence. US occupation just worsens the radicalization. And seeing democracy as the cure is as shortsighted as it is naive. How could a democracy operate when the capitol building is a constant target of suicide bombers? Blowback in Iraq and Palestine will likely continue for at least another generation, if not longer if the civil war ceases to subside in Iraq and Israel and Palestine do not come so a final accord.

So could Iraq's potential or current terrorists come back and haunt the US and, indeed, the world? In reality, they already are. More so than in the case of Afghanistan? Probably. The civil war and American occupation, as well as an influx of terrorists, has made Iraq a hotbed of Islamic extremism.

Multivoice poem: three fronts related to the GWOT

Intense: three battlegrounds, three stories, one event tying them all together
1. Sweat dripped down the interior of his damn clothes.
2. Sweat dropped from his brow as he stared at endless letters on the screen.
3. A bead of sweat swam down the darkened shoulder of the Marine.

1. Why must I wear these shameful rags, if only to fit in, he thought… it is a necessary disguise for the attack.
2. This is it, he thought, the reason he had become an analyst: to stop the terrorists who killed his mother.
3. Why the hell did he answer the call of patriotism from within him, why did he listen to that recruitment poster, he thought — who was this war protecting? He had enrolled after the terrorist attack; how could he be so naïve?

1. Was everything in place? He hoped so. The attack was soon.
2. He saw the sign, the attack is near; he raced to the office of his superior.
3. Another roadside bomb, another brother killed – more innocents too.

1. He fantasized more: Soon he would be in heaven, these infidels one and all burning in the flames of their own damnation.
2. The proof was in front of him, but no one would listen; arrogant national security bureaucrats cannot be reasoned with.
3. After the spike of adrenaline everyone must have felt, he slowed the vehicle down.

1. His brothers looked like they were soon to begin the operation.
2. He kicked the glass door, it did not break, but his toe hurt like hell, he didn’t know whether that was good or bad — there were more important things than a screwed toe about to happen.
3. Bullets rained upon the convoy, death followed in their trail.

1. A prayer was said; and then the attack began.
2. An hour later breaking news flashed across the television screen: terrorist attack.
3. War is a machine of death, killing those around you — killing those you know, and those you don’t. He was one of the lucky ones though. But why was he lucky? If only there were more.