This morning federal agents arrested Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized US Citizen born in Pakistan, for his part in an attempted bombing Saturday in New York's Times Square.
I'm certain we will soon hear the chorus of those who will say, "We weren't attacked while George Bush was President," ignoring Richard Reid AND the attempts in New Jersey and L.A., but my question for them would be 'since when were the lives of hundreds of Britons or Spaniards worth LESS than lives here?' Since when does the fact that attacks didn't primarily kill Americans make everything OK? (Please remember that dozens of Americans - for example - died in the Bali bombing).
However, my response to this kind of idiocy is simply this. I thought we were fighting them "there" to keep from having to fight them "here." I though, especially since we were told Iraq was the central front in the Greater War on Terror, and that we had "won" (both of which were BS) - but anyway, I thought, in the minds of neo-conservatives, that we wouldn't face these kinds of attacks any longer. I thought George Bush's vast successes included winning Iraq and by it, killing off the terrorists until there weren't 'no more.' Apparently not, apparently he and they were wrong, nearly dead wrong.
The point is, it was a lie to say we were in Iraq to fight them "there." People with any level of expertise and honesty understood that terrorists are born of many reasons. They may be zealots who firmly believe in Wahabism or Catholicism or even anti-tax/anti-abortion insanity. They may be the family members of those killed by errant bombs OR as may have been the case here, they may be sympathetic, deluded souls who think our attacks in Pakistan killing Taliban leaders and/or which inadvertently kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. The point is, we can't "kill off" terrorism, nor was there any validity to the idea that we were "engaging" ALL of the terrorists (or any significant number) in either Iraq or Pakistan. There are and were PLENTY to go around, most importantly because they are motivated by different things, and new ones are motivated by new things all the time, such as the killing of the Pakistani Taliban leader.
The end result simply is this, terrorism is only truly fought by de-legitimizing the message of the terrorists themselves. You can't "kill it", you can't "fight" in the streets. You will never run out of opponents, and killing a tactic is impossible anyway. Obama has in no way slackened the effort, in fact he's probably more aggressively engaged the Taliban than at any point since 2001, and the consequence is terrorism - and it is a price we are likely to continue to have to pay. So before anyone belly-aches about faux prevention by one President while ignoring the failure to prevent fighting "here" or there, let's remember that the enemy is implacable and irrepressible as long as we do not have a good and logical counter to their chaos. If we help to sustain a stable government in Pakistan, if we stop occupying Afghanistan as much as we are helping to end corruption, we will find ourselves a much more welcome sight, and our own wacko citizenry probably will only try to bomb us for asking them to pay for governmental services, rather than because we killed other terrorists (as was apparently this man's cause).
There is a predictable uproar over this (alleged) terrorist being given his Miranda rights.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to note, that like the underwear bomber, without waterboarding or other torture, this guy is apparently singing like a bird.
I'm guessing that psychologically, even if it wasn't by intent, that being so close to getting away with his escape when he was pulled off the plane must have been devestating, on top of the failure of his car-bomb to detonate which was presumably known to him.
Although presumably not as devestating as it was for the underwear bomber to have his undies catch on fire while he was still in them. As horrifyingly painful as that must have been....contemplating a lifetime behhind bars being ridiculed as the guy who tried to blow up his own pants is probably pretty tough too. (Sorry, but I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how anyone could be persuaded to do that.)
The other thought that occurred to me is that if this guy who left the car-bomb in NYC was in Pakistan for FIVE months being trained - AND is thought to have had help here in the assembly, based on fingerprints, etc. -- and he is clearly an educated man, who is cooperating now with authorities... is there any chance that he intended this car-bomb to fail? To scare us, without hurting anyone? Just thinking out loud... because just from the information on the news, never mind the internet or the library, if someone wanted to make a successful bomb, it would make sense that it was possible to make one that worked better than this.
It will be interesting to see what the rest of the details of this story are as they emerge. I'm wondering if his wife and kids, who are presumably American born, and therefore American citizens, return to this country or not...for starters.
Actually, there is no uproar from any *significant* conservative over the Miranda rights; most of us note, correctly, that people arrested on US soil by US law enforcement are subject to US civil law.
ReplyDeleteNo, the real uproar is that the left initially tried to blame this incident on the Tea Party - as Michael Bloomberg (a Democrat in all but name) said, on someone opposed to Obamacare.
This follows on a string of slanders - in which this blog has participated - aimed at the right, claiming some surge of violence and violent intent when there has been none. At the same time, the Sparkman suicide, the Austin plane crash, the Pentagon shooting, the destruction of a good chunk of Santa Cruz' business area have all been linked to the left (in some cases quite proudly).
When will you and your blog take responsibility for all the domestic crimes that you support?
Welcome to Penigma, Alfredo!
ReplyDeleteNew York Mayor Blumberg has supported the basic premise behind some of the Tea Party movement. He said in a report by the New York Daily News published on April 16, 2010 that "Its a bunch of people getting involved in government, in politics. Its good for the country". I have seen an allusion to Mayor Blumberg's interview with Catie Couric on CBS in which he was speculating on motive. While that probably wasn't the brightest move to make on his part, it doesn't constitute a statement blaming the right for the bombing.
I'm at a loss to determine how the Sparkman suicide, the Austin Plane crash, the San Antonio shooting and destruction of businesses in Santa Barbarbra (CA?) are related to the left. I understand from news reports that the Sparkman suicide was originally classified as a homicide, and then a suicide staged to look like a homicide.
Before I can give any credence to the rest of the statements made, I would like to see some references to how those incidents are linked to the left.
I should correct my above statement: I meant Santa Cruz, not Santa Barbara.
ReplyDeleteI would like to join my colleague and co-admin ToE in welcoming you to Penigma. Thank you for commenting.
ReplyDeleteJust to name two sources for my claim of 'a predictable uproar', (and there are more than two) let me cite the interview between Don Imus and John McCain for one, where there was a very strong objectin voiced to the Miranda rights reading to the alleged car-bomber. Another would be statements made by Fox News personalities (and dear God in heaven, the lone voice of reason in favor of Miranda was Glenn Beck - words I never thought I would write).
How many other SIGNIFICANT individuals do I need to identify in national media outlets to make my point? I don't mind producing the requisite laundry list, I just want to know when I can stop digging.
I will point out that these tend to be many of the same individuals who incorrectly criticized the Mirandizing of the undie-bomber.
I find the claim that this was a tea party failed bombing ludicrous. The threats from the right have been directed at specific individuals not mass slaughter.
Other than Mayor Bloomberg who is a Republican, although I leave it to his fellow Republicans to purge him as not being 'pure' enough, I am unaware of anyone else on the left or in the center who has made this claim.
I consider the mayors of New York City to be flamboyant as part of the job description; it is the only way to explain statements from any and all of them, across the board, from Ed Koch to Rudy Guiliani, including Bloomberg.
I will leave it to ToE to expound on the finer points of Miranda rights.
As the writer (not Penigma, who wrote this post) of the statement that there had been an avalanche of threats and a few acts from the political right directed at the left, I protest your accusation of slander.
As with the two instances of objections to Miranda from the right above, I intend to document the events I called an avalanche.
I will be posting that shortly, with links, but in a separate post from this one. I don't want my colleague / blog owner Pen thinking I've hijacked his thread here about the car-bomber.
Would you please identify which specific crime you feel this blog has supported, and indicate the post or comment on Penigma where I or my colleagues have done so, and we would be delighted to respond.
I'm fairly certain we have not, any of us, at any time, written about the Pentagon bomber, the Austing plane guy,the Sparkman suicide, etc. that you list. If you have other crimes to specify that we have supported, please produce them.
If you can.
an addendum - my colleague and very nominal boss as the blog owner, Penigma, has made the comment that we can ask for facts but not demand them.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much think that when someone once makes a claim of something as fact, it is fair to challenge that 'fact'. But I concur that courtesy is essential, and perhaps more so to our minority conservative commenters who might feel a bit outnumbered here.
We want you to feel welcome, and challenged, but pleasantly challenged in the spirit of a rowdy but amicable discussion.
So, allow me to add "Please" to my request for facts to support those statements.
One more postscript - I wrote "there is a predictable uproar over... Miranda rights"; I did not claim it was a unanimous position; I did not even claim it was from the right although given recent objections to Mirandizing, that may be inferred.
ReplyDeleteI would point out that originally I did not quantify it at all. So, additionally, I'd like to challenge our newest commenter to explain how he (presuming gender from the nom de plume) is able to claim to speak for "most of us", and to inquire if he is a more significant individual in politics than John McCain (for instance)? Please?
Discussing Miranda rights:
ReplyDeleteGenerally, it is unnecessary for anyone who is in custody to be read their "Miranda rights" unless the law enforcement agency wants to use the subsequent conversation against them (including the fruits of that conversation.
When analyzing an alleged Miranda violation, one first turns to whether or not the person is in "custody" and/or whether the interrogation is custodial. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) the Supreme Court held that a suspect who was held in custody must be warned of his right to counsel, of his right to remain silent, and of his right to have counsel present if he wanted one, and to not speak without counsel present. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that whether an individual is in custody is determined by the circumstances of the individual case, but that as a general rule, "the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a `formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest." California vs Beheler 436 US 1121 at 1125 (1983) A variety of cases have been heard since then where a suspect's custodial interrogation has been ambiguous as to whether it was in custody, but the basic premise remains the same.
Next, turning as to whether or not the decision in Miranda ibid exempted certain classes of criminal offenses, I was unable to find in any reading of Miranda where the Supreme Court held that a person being charged with terrorism (regardless of citizenship, and I note that the accused in this case is a US citizen), is not entitled to the same constitutional protections as anyone else.
I will admit, I have it only on hearsay that various conservatives had indicated they did not believe Miranda warnings were appropriate for a terror suspect. If they said that, they are in error. If they were misquoted, that is a different matter which I am certain will be corrected on this blog.
I would be happy to provide links to the interview of Senator McCain by Don Imus, as well as the Fox news comments, and the statements by ranking House Peter King of NY, or the comment from John Cornyn of Texas -- all opposing Miranda rights for the alleged car bomber.
ReplyDeleteSenator Joe Lieberman on the other hand wants to strip citizenship of those who collaborate with groups like the Taliban. I don't oppose the idea of a conviction for attacking the US resulting in stripping of citizenship, but I have a problem with stripping citizenship without some kind of due process and court proceeding that determines actual guilt of a crime as a condition for loss of citizenship.
ToE/DG,
ReplyDeleteYou weren't wrong, those who said mirandizing was wrong were:
1. John McCain
2. Peter King - Ranking Republican member of the House Subcommittee on Intelligence
So, we have the last Republican Presidential candidate AND one of the most influential voices on intelligence practices... gee, I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Alfredo's Head... first, your post was a little inchoherent, it appears you mean to say that Dems are guilty of crimes, but fail, other than to accuse them of slander, to enumerate such crimes. I'm sure you understand that slander is a civil violation, not a criminal act, but you seem to have either grossly exagerated the truth by calling them 'crimes' or don't know the difference.
Second, you had a pretty select list of crimes you wanted to focus on, let me help you expand your list.
First, there was the right-wing wacko who shot two cops (fatally) because "Obama was going to take his guns."
Then there was the right-wing wacko who killed Dr. Tiller.
Then there were 9 right-wing wackos arrested for plotting to kill police (the militia members in Michigan).
While it was a leap to assume the "white guy" who planted a bomb in NY was a militia member (or similar) by contrast, there are DAMNED few left-wing wackos out shooting up places, or gunning down doctors, or blowing up big buildings (like Timothy McVeigh - another right-wing wacko). It was irresponsible, but not an entirely impossible scenario to envision.
Yet, I wonder where your vitriole is for people like Mitch Berg who said that verbal attacks/spitting on Democratic representatives were fiction or, worse yet, invented/perpetrated by the left to smear the right. Or where is your venom regarding folks who accuse Barack Obama of blowing up the oil platform in the Gulf or (as Mike Brown did) of wanting the oil slick to run up the east coast so that he could advance his agenda?
Before you answer, however, please remember that THIS post was about pointing out something much more meaningful than the ugly rhetoric of the extreme right (like Berg or Limbaugh) or like their equivilents on the left Farakhan or Sharpton - it was about the PRESIDENT, George Bush, telling us that his war, well, his SECOND war, was about winning the GWOT - was about fighting them there, to keep from fighting them here. This wasn't simple conspiracy theory or sophistry clap-trap, as the likes of Berg so frequently engage in, it was about pointing out that this meme' (of fighting them THERE) didnt' work. Further, that the hypocrisy of trying to claim Bush prevented attacks was meaningless next to the fact that IT DIDN'T WORK to do what we were told it WOULD do. It was done to hold the dishonest people (like Limbaugh and Berg) affirmatively accountable and stave off moronic sophistry.
So, how about it, would you care to explain, given that "Bush won HIS (second) war" - how is it that we have terrorists left? Or maybe, just maybe, you know full well that this line was bull - just like claims that the left committed crimes nationwide by suggesting the right (based on past bad acts) might have something to do with attempting to bomb something.
Well as long as the Wahabbi branch of Islam is around and has the influence it currently has (based mostly in Saudi Arabia and well funded so they build a lot of mosques in other countries) there will be islamic terrorists. The Wahabbi branch of islam is about the strictest in terms of Sharia law and the Koran. They see western culture as something to be removed because we make the laws ourselves rather than getting them from allah. Not all muslims think this way but the Wahabbi do and they fund a lot of the Mahadras schools on the Pakistan Afghanistan border. They also fund a lot of mosques in the US and elsewhere. The mosque in Virginia where 2 or 3 of the 9/11 hijackers and the Ft Hood shooter attended for a while was funded by Wahabbi money and part of the deal is they have to allow the imams from Saudi Arabia to come in and preach. There is a mosque up the road from me in Irving funded by them and a couple years ago they had an Ayatollah Khomeni celebration day. The Wahabbis are not the nice muslims who go to the mosque and wave at you on your way to your church, they are the ones who believe that allah commands them to put the whole world under Sharia law.
ReplyDeleteOne other note, I bet the people accusing Obama of blowing up the oil platform are the same ones who accused the corp of engineers of blowing up the levees in Katrina. Or accused Bush or the Jews of blowing up the world trade center. Or said it was a missile not a plane that hit the pentagon on 9/11 (I guess the passengers are still hiding). Those people see conspiracies everywhere and they are not left or right they are just out there.
ReplyDeleteTuck,
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with your first post, and I spent 2-3 years arguing with those who wanted to lump all Muslims together and claim that fighting in Iraq was equivelent to fighting Wahabism. It wasn't, and it was stupid to say it was.
It's also stupid to assert Iran is the equivelent of fighting Wahabism - Iran is Shiaa and hates the Wahabis. Iran AND 60% of Iraq in fact are Shiaa - and hate Wahabis. So, we were NEVER ever really faciing Wahabism, or fighting Wahabism, in Iraq to any great or meaningful degree. We saw, once we stopped opposing tribal customs and leaders, that in fact Iraq, a secular nation, had about zero use for Islamic (Sunni version) Fundamentalists. The vast majority of Iraqis turned on them the Wahabis of the world once the US was no longer seen as primarily an occupier.
Consequently, in truth Iraq was NEVER the "central front" on the 'war on terror.' That was Afghanistan if it was anywhere. My point in general was that Bush was off-target in Iraq (at best) and was effectively fighting a war of his chosing which accomplished little with respect to 9/11. Thus, those who for would belly-ache about Obama and "we were never attacked in the balance of Bush's Presidency", my reply is that this line of thought is ludicrous, especially given that Iraq never could have and never did "prevent" anything.
I would point out that we should at least be able to find common ground with our newest commenter in supporting Miranda rights.
ReplyDeleteLet me be the first here on Penigma to condemn, EUALLY, the speculation on the left that was wrong for speculating that those in opposition to health care reform were responsible for the failed car-bomb as a continuation of the threats of violence and vandalism against the left. It was wrong and stupid, both for speculating wildly without facts, and for the stupidity of presuming that health care reform opposers would protest by...making more emergency room victims in need of health care to do it. Ditto prominent figures like Robert Dreyfuss over at the Nation. But at the same time, lets not ignore the comments of figures like Rush Limbaugh who made a similar crack about the car bomb having an Obama sticker on it, or his comment that the alleged bomber was a registered Democrat, something he just made up.
If you want to blow off Limbaugh's comments as Rush just being an entertainer, then I think you also have to blow off comments by people like Bloomberg as 'just wondering' idle speculation rather than accusations.
Either we condemn (note, condem, not prevent, not censor) intemperate and irresponsible speech - which is how I would characterize the comments by Bloomberg, Limbaugh, and the others, or we don't.
But it is wrong to condemn one side or the other exclusively on the basis of partisan politics.
Wrong is wrong, no excuses. If you are not prepared to condemn wrong equally, then don't expect to be given credence or respect.
Which I would point out to be very different than silencing anyone.
I cannot miss the irony that when McVeigh blew up the Murrah building, the speculation on who did that crime of terrorism was initially foreign, only to find it was domestic terrorism. This appears to be the reverse, suspicion that this was domestic terrorism only to find it had at least a foreign element.
I hope Head of Alfredo will join us in codemning speculation without facts, and the kind of partisan rhetoric that detracts from rather than advancing cogent discussion.
I would add that however much we may deplore certain aspects of the more extreme forms of other religions, like the Wahabi, we tend not to be very knowledgable in any depth about those religions we criticize. In balance we need to also be cognizant of our own failures in that regard, our own religious extremists and fundamentalists.
Tuck, LOL, given some of the actions of the Texas school board relating to text books...? I'm just saying....we have our own off-center, off-kilter, off-balance folks to keep in check, right here, as the song says from "the Music Man" in 'River City'.
I would point out that, as our own ToE so correctly identified in his comments on Miranda rights, it is not something unique to US citizens.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I noticed hot air blogger and NARN radio host on local St. Paul /Mpls AM station WWTC, Ed Morrisey got wrong in the WaPo article by Howard Kurtz where he was quoted as saying "Shahzad is an American citizen, arrested by law enforcement in America." So far, accurate.
But the quote continues "As a US citizen, Shahzad has the right to remain silent. In that sense, he differs from the Eunuchbomber, who attempted to enter the country (our airspace) to conduct a sabotage mission for an enemy of the US."
While not as overtly intemperate as Drefuss's comments, or Limbaugh's, this subtle affirmation of the misinformation promoted by McCain, King, Cornyn and others on the right suggests not only a failure to comprehend basic K-12 level civics classes, this kind of misinformation also promotes the kind of partisan division that could easily be avoided by being more factual.
I always cringe when those who wrap themselves in banners of patriotism -- WWTC 1280 AM is known as 'THE PATRIOT' -- are in fact apparently ignorant of such fundamental elements of our government they claim to love.
You can't be loving it all that much if you know it so little. Those of us, regardless of our politics who both understand the fundamentals of our democracy, AND who are more careful with our facts, are I think the more loyal patriotic citizens.
For those who might not be fans of conservative blog-driven radio, I should point out that Mitch Berg, a mutual friend of Pen and I, who was instrumental in approaching Pen to join Penigma nearly a year ago, is the co-host with Ed Morrissey of the readio show on Saturday afternoons that I mentioned.
ReplyDeleteA year later, I lift my coffee cup in salute, and drink to your health Mitch. Without a bit of teasing and a nudge or two, and a bit of mentoring over these past 12months, I wouldn't have had all this fun. Cheers to you, my dear! and thanks!
And of course, thaks as well, most of all to Penigma for allowing me the privilege, and for being as delightful a person to work with and for as anyone could hope to enjoy. To ToE for the many conversations, the wisdom and constructive criticism, and most of all the many many whoops of laughter. To all of our contributing authors, a special thank you for expanding the content with your expertise and thoughtfulness.
DG said, "I hope Head of Alfredo will join us in codemning speculation without facts,"
ReplyDeleteI concur, including condemning his own apparent speculation that Dems engaged in crimes nationwide by slandering others, when slander is a tort, not a criminal statute.
However, let's be 100% clear, I categorically refute, deny and oppose any suggestion that the ball rests exactly in the middle on the balance scale with regard to irresponsible and ugly commentary. A few, a handful of those on the left egnage in highly intemperate comment. By contrast, Rush Limbaugh is the most powerful voice in the Republican Party. His word cannot be questioned without the questrioner facing accusations of defacto treason against "the movement." Even our friend Mr. Berg is incapable of criticizing Limbaugh's frequent disgusting comments for fear of rebuke or worse, fear that he won't be able to be our local "Rusbho."
Even worse and more compelling, our Vice President, Dick Cheney, made comment after comment condemning those who disagreed with the actions in Iraq of being disloyal, even treasonous. He also (along with the Prez and the nearly all of the rest of the Republicans) claimed (fatuously) that fighting the terrorists in Iraq would help to prevent (if not totally prevent) fighting them in the US. THAT point is the point of this post - that claim was nonsense. Iraq had little to do with Wahabism, and if anything, just as the CIA AND DIA said in 2004, if anything, it increased recruiting for Al Qaeda and Wahabism, not the other way around.
When Berg (or Alfredo's Head) chose to be intellectually honest about the nature of the political discussion, that they have a wicked, mendacious voice leading their Party, just as you and I (and many other Dems/independents) have criticized folks like Farakhan - then the scales will sit more evenly, but for now, the scales are pegged with the weight of responsibility for vicious, venomous violence-inducing vitriole falling so decidedly on the Republicans that it might as well be the case that the plate holding their end of the scale was nailed in place to the floor.
Until we accept that we can only defeat terrorism with reason, wisdom, and decency, we will continue to fail. Until we understand that discourse must start with sincere and even-handed honesty, the scales of justice will be just a memory.
To my friend Penigma, I agree that you can't kill them all. What, then, is your strategy against a worldwide amorphous enemy that aims for soft targets to kill innocents and is willing to die in the effort?
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for Pen, but I think part of the solution at least in Afghanistan, is to focus on reducing the incredible amount of corruption. Probably wouldn't hurt any in either Iraq or Pakistan either.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there is a significant majority of the population in each of those countries I listed above, that is willing to pursue a secular, modern nation for themselves.
That should be the key, imho, to competing for the allegiance of at least many of those currently opposed to us. If we can gain that, the let them take care of their own extremists - and we can take care of ours.
American citizens caught in the US get their Miranda rights. Now about a year ago someone suggested that prisoners captured in Afghanistan should be read their rights. Soldiers in the field are not making arrests, they kill or capture people. You basically have the right to drop your weapon and wave a white flag and hopefully not get shot. From what I saw on the news last night the times square bomber was questioned for 8 hrs before being read his rights. Holder gave a perfectly reasonable explanation, concern for public safety. They were not going to use what he said against him in court they were using it to find more terrorists or more bombs before they went off. Once they got what they needed for that and started digging for stuff to use in a trial they read him his rights. John McCain is usually in favor of doing things by the book so I wonder if he knew they did question him for 8 hrs before reading him his rights. On the other side of this a few left groups, I think ACLU and Amnesty International, were complaining about him not being read his rights for the first 8 hrs.
ReplyDelete@dog gone, respectfully, I don't see your strategy as holding much promise. These nations are permeated with corruption and armed extremists who are not at risk from more moderate or secular elements of their societies. Afghanistan's economy depends upon the opium trade. While ultimately, we must strive to change hearts and minds there, soft power won't be sufficent.
ReplyDeleteDr. Kirsch,
ReplyDeleteWhile there is some debate on how to deal with terrorist organizations, whether they are multinational or localized, there is also some agreement.
From what I have read, which rests principally on the National Intelligence Estimate released in 2004 (iir), on Gen. David Patreaus speaking and writing on the subject, and upon the writings of people like Richard Clarke - terrorism is fought by recognizing:
1. It is a tactic - a tactic employed by those who understand they cannot fight military forces in the field. Principally this is because they lack either funding, arms or manpower (or any compbination). Consequently, they engage in "asynchronous" warfare.
2. They are fighting a political battle (primarily). As such, they are mainly championing an idea, a political agenda, rather than seeking to "liberate" or subjegate (at least in their eyes).
3. Because of 1 and 2, unless the movement is tiny, the cause does not die simply by catching or killing those who are active supporters, it only can be opposed by challenging the political message OR making such support more unpopular than whatever the cause is.
The NIE quite simply stated that you have to deligitimize the message of Al Qaeda and/or make their havens no longer safe by making those who would otherwise hide them seek instead to expose them.
Patreaus went about this by first cutting down on collateral deaths among the Iraqi civilians. He required the US Army to reverse importance it placed on avoiding civilian deaths during military operations. Most importantly, he effectively took private security operations like Blackwater off the streets to help address frequent and vociferous complaints about the cavallier nature such operations took/showed toward civilian safety. The principal reason for this change is that Patreaus (and others) knew that you keep making MORE terrorists when you kill the kids of people who otherwise are ambivelent to your presence.
Patreaus also recognized that the Iraqis had no great love for the Wahabis. He insisted on some local honesty in the Iraqi and US Military press about the differences between Shiaa and Sunni Fundamentalism (especially within the US military) - so as to create an appearance of understanding of the culture.
Coincidentially (again iir) the US ALSO took the step of no longer prohibiting Baathists from the Army or employment. This may be the most significant point - if you employ people, keep them somewhat safe, and ensure their kids don't die going to school - they are MUCH less likely to want to harbor those who will blow up their kids. A big generator of those who would blow themselves up was the fact that unemployment was at 75% in Iraq in 2004-2006, people volunteered to die if the insurgency would feed their family. Give them a job, that goes away.
So, in short, you don't win by fighting with main force. You convince the locals you aren't the enemy, you ensure their safety, and you let THEM deal with the criminals, psychopaths and thugs who would otherwise be hiding among them. To do this, if they need it, you give them military/logistical support to bring this about.
Lastly, if you have been engaging in predatory/exploitive activity within the country, you are going to have to face the fact that guerilla warfare is a form of protest against that activity and decide whether you feel changing your conduct is feasible. I think (personally) requiring Iraq to sell us its oil below market prices for the next X number of years and requiring that OUR Oil companies will control this flow, is going to be a problem - it IS exploitive, but it is not so exploitive that it will cause the insurgency to survive if the other things are dealt with. Conversely, if we try to prevent the Shiaa from taking over, we will be an OCCUPYING force, and we will NOT have the support of the public, and we will lose.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteI would be extraordinarily surprised if either Amnesty International OR the ACLU made such a complaint for different reasons.
AI attempts to prevent torture - it does not concern itself with lawful questioning. MANY MANY people in the US are questioned when they are NOT considered suspects and haven't been arrested - as such AI has no concern. In this case, he was arrested, but just as ToE pointed out, such questioning is fully lawful if the proceeds of the questionsing will not be used in evidence against him. AI may not be a legal expert, but neither situation would constitute torture.
The ACLU, conversely, IS a legal expert, perhaps the foremost on the extreme protection side - and I'm quite confident they'd know about the ability of the government to question someone as any statement or other evidence which might be gained from such questioning is excluded. I'll look for this online, and if you are right, I assure you I'll be talking with the ACLU, as I've been a card carrying member (proudly) for more than 20 years. If George Bush (Sr.) had pilloried me for being one, my reply would have been "Damned Right I am, why aren't you? Do you have a problem with an organization which defends your basic liberties?"
I reviewed your thoughtful response, which deserves a longer response than I have time for. I agree with all that you said is a long term and necessary strategy. This may take a generation. What do we do in the meantime with evil and dangerous fanatics that aim to kill as many of us as they can? And, what do we do when one of them obtain biological weapons or a 'dirty' bomb?
ReplyDeleteDr. Kirsch,
ReplyDeleteYou ask a different question (kind of) namely, what to do with specific situations.
In terms of short term solutions - in Afghanistan the ONLY solution is to deal with a highly corrupt government. The people of Afghanistan are beyond weary of having a corrupt and useless government. Killing Afghanis will not solve that problem, chasing the Taliban from town to town, will not solve that problem. In short, the problem often is local.
With respect to dedicated, hard-line terrorists, whether we're talking about ultra-right-wing anti-government militia folks in the US, or Al Qaeda in the Swat River Valley - you MUST make the messenger/terrorist a pariah. If you blow up the town, they are no longer the enemy. What Patreaus did in Iraq was not LONG term, it was immediate, and it was immediately effective. You have to find out what is motivating the populace to back the terrorists, and take it away to the best of your ability.
I am far less fearful of a biological weapon than of some other form of mass destruction weapon. Biologics are VERY VERY hard to obtain, and nearly as hard to use - unless you want to clasify a natural poison like Ricin as a biologic, when in truth it's merely a natural poison weaponized. Dirty Bombs are another matter, but nothing we're doing in Afghanistan is going to stop that sort of attack.
First, I prefer to be called Michael, or I will start to address you as Mrs. Penigma. Your goals are laudable, but how do we get there? I agree that we need to address Afghanistan's corruption, as an example you cite, but how can this be done? The world is brimming with situation that cry for a solution, but can't yet be solved. Look at Iran, N.Korea, Middle East, etc, etc. Nearly everyone, including U.N., agrees that Iran should be dissuaded from acquiring nukes, but concerted diplomatic pressure is failing. I understand that not every quagmire can be solved by any means. I just think that some of your objectives are not realistic. This is not to say that a muscular approach will succeed.
ReplyDeleteMichael, DG here, (the sole female member of penigma's roster)one of the options I think we need to explore is that sharia'h law does not condone either corruption, or activities associated with growing opium.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a lot that we can do to promote for example the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam to help even out where sharia law, especially the more extreme very old violent punishements of 'hudud' that relates to stoning, amputation, etc. in violation of modern recognized human rights and other international law.
Growing poppies and exporting opium is more of an economic necessity in Afghanistan, given their poor educational system and lack of other economic opportunities.
If we make it unprofitable to grow poppies (and I'm all in favor of destroying those crops, for example) and at the same time give them reasonable, preferably better alternatives, many if not all opium poppy farmers would be happy to do something else for a living.
If we likewise work to eradicate corruption, through honest courts and fair, honest policing, we could accomplish a lot. Ditto, honest elections, education for women, micro-loans for women, etc.
What I think doesn't work is to breeze into the country, dripping guns and privilege, to tell them how stupid, backward and dishonest they are.
I would add that the old book "The Ugly American" by Burdick and Lederer (who coincidentally wrote my high school history textbook) has been formative of my thoughts. The title refers to an American and his wife, whom locals think are not aesthetically appealing, but who endear themselves to the locals in a small and somewhat remote area of southeast asia. They come to live with the locals, learning the language, sharing in the local customs, and then helping them improve on how they live their lives, but not trying to make the local population live like urban industrialized westerners. In doing so the 'ugly' americans profoundly endear themselves, winning the hearts and minds of these people they came to help.
It is a book that should be revived for the lessons it has to offer on how to proceed in this more modern crisis.
@DG,
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Your comment: If we make it unprofitable to grow poppies (and I'm all in favor of destroying those crops, for example) and at the same time give them reasonable, preferably better alternatives, many if not all opium poppy farmers would be happy to do something else for a living.
Great idea. How do we replace a highly profitable product in demand throughout the world with an alternative? Drug dealers here at home who earn millions of dollars will be able to be persuaded to work at WalMart.
Your comment: If we likewise work to eradicate corruption, through honest courts and fair, honest policing, we could accomplish a lot. Ditto, honest elections, education for women, micro-loans for women, etc.
Good thought, but how would we accomplish in countries led by such progressive thinkers as Kim Jong-il, Achmandinejad and Saddam Hussein?
Everyone agrees that there is no military solution to so many of the world's conflicts. Similarly, diplomacy and negotiations may not be sufficient tools as well. If a fanatical killer is pointing a gun at you or your family, there is not the possibility of trying to soften his heart in the next nanosecond. While I support the long term strategies and tactics, we need to think about the next few decades also.
Michael, I am addressing specifically the countries where we are currently fighting within foreign borders - Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - to address what we need to accomplish, so we can get the hell out of them.
ReplyDeleteIf I had hoped to address the subject of countires where we are not 'boots on the ground' in conflict, to eradicate terrorists, I'd be looking first at Saudi Arabia.
As much as I dislike the government of North Korea, for both its oppressive domestic policies as well as its international policies, they haven't done anything successful or significant to launch terrorist attacks within the boundaries of the US.
I would suggest that eradicating poppy crops makes them de facto unprofitable. The stick of a carrot and stick approach. I also think this would be best done by other Afghans rather than us. If we then provide agricultural aid - alternative crops, seeds, equipment, irrigation where needed, and marketing assistance, so they can profit as well as provide for themselves, we could go a long way to improving the lives of these people.
Your drug dealer analogy to working for Walmart in the US -- I would refer you to the best selling book on economics, "Freakenomics", which finds that in fact drug dealing is NOT profitable for those on the lower rungs, doing the dirtiest work and taking the greatest risks, and that those criminals are often paid less than minimum wage, and face a great deal of violence as well.
The problems for these individuals involved in drugs is that to make them reasonable WalMart hires would require improving their level of education, as well as improving their work ethic and reliability as employees, and of course their ethical conduct and motivation.
Not an impossible task, but a different one, with different challenges --- which I would argue is more of an apples to agates comparison, than apples to apples or apples to oranges one.
Michael, let me put this to you in terms of a more strategic analysis.
ReplyDeleteOpponents to the US, to the west generally, are using a mix of appealing to the most fundamentalist versions of Islam, mixed with a combination of tribal loyalties and incipient nationalism AGAINT US.
Just as in various asian-originating martial arts, the strengths such as height and weight of the opponent are used against them..... I propose we use Islam against our adversaries, in essence.
Instead of being perceieved as the enemy of Islam - as in Bush using the term crusade, as in allowing missionaries to go into Iraq with bibles to convert muslims after we invaded, as in providing weapons to our armed forces and their allies including muslim allies that featured bible verses that came into view when one looked through the gun sites - we learn the lessons of hisotry that others like the Brits and the Russians failed to learn.
Enlist religious leaders as well as secular local leaders to enforce law - and support them doing so. It ma not be done the way we do it, but it's their country. Use the Cairo accords to advantage as the initial bridge over existing hostilities. What I am convinced of is that the stupid, clumsy, heavy handed Christianity-should-dominte-the world view not only won't work, it has failed like pouring gasoline on flames instead of water fails to put out a fire. Civilian deaths are another example; there are far too many; companies whose employees conduct themselves the way Blackwater and Haliburton have, again, hurt us more than anyone else.
We've accomplished tremendous destruction, very very little construction, in countries that had very little left to lose.
We need to encourage Americans to learn foreign languages and foeign culture, and to stop expecting everyone else in the world to learn English for our convenience.
I have been following with great interest the progress made by Obama in reaching out, almost entirely below the 'radar' low profile way to muslims, particularly in the US, but also to muslims with ties outside the US. The more I see of Obama, particularly in foreign policy, the more I am persuaded the man has a subtle, perhaps devious, deliciously byzantine mind. I like that, I understand that kind fo thinking. (Alas, I fear my esteemed colleague, ToE, is at this moment either exhaling his beverage out his nose, or choking as he tries to laugh and swallow simultaneously --- sorry ToE!)
Force is not in and by itself an effective answer, although it is a small but important part of the answer. Subtlety, understanding and knowledge, truely effective leverage IS essential.
The Taliban and Al-Quaeda are not well loved by a majority of the population. They hold sway through violence, not love. We need to use that.
We don't use that by propping up Karzai and his kind who are more hated than even the Taliban, ditto Pakistan's grifters in politics.
We need to play a very different game, back different play and players.
"Ugly American" was a roman a clef, a thinly fictionalized non-fiction account of real events. The lessons it presents are easily adaptable to our current events. I would encourage Penigma readers to take a look at it; it is still in print, and I believe has been so pretty much continuously since it was written in 1958.
I read it for the first time well after 1958, when I was around 10, at the suggestion of a teacher. It is one of those exceptional books which only improves with re-reading.
Well, I guess I now know your approximate age. Regarding your Obama encomiums, let's see what happens with Iran, as an example. Obama and Bush had a very different approach on preventing them from proceeding with a nuclear weapons program. Obama ran hard on this issue, and took some gruff from candidate Clinton, when he said he would sit down with them. I think this is a fair test of whether his softer and 'under the radar' approach will lead to the outcome that nearly the entire world desires. I hope, of course, that your assessment of him is correct. We shall see whether he is truly deft and subtle or naive and ineffective.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, no president has reached out to the Moslem world more than the current one. Let's see what transpires.
ROFL, you should know better Michael than to speculate about a woman's age.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the Ugly American has been in print continuously since 1958, and that I read it well after it was first in print... I would suggest you reconsider your speculation. I also started reading Shakespeare when I was around 10 years old.
But more on topic, I think that Obama was very clever to assemble the effective coalition in opposition to Iran (especially the Soviet Union support), something I see as more effective than anything relating to Iran that Bush accomplished with his 'my way or the highway' approach. I see Obama as at least attempting to be more proactive and less reactive than either the Clinton or Bush administrations re Iran. I see Obama as effectively significantly isolating Iran without it taking American lives or money to do so, and I see Obama as willing to play a patient, steady long game that acts in small increments, not looking just at short-term, big action policies.
I don't see Obama as having a lot of alternatives, given how thinly stretched our military resources are as it is, although I suspect he might choose this route even if our military was not so exhausted.
What I referenced from 'the Ugly American' is not so different from the strategy of Petreus in Iraq, forming alliances with locals in opposition to the Iraqi Al Queda, and stabilizaing sections of the country in cooperation with local traditional/ tribal groups.
It is not a one-size-fits-all approach by any means. In every location it has to be adapted, customized, to the individuals, the customs and language, and the unique challenges presented by not only each country where we have a military presence, but each region and area.
I think we have a lot of our own corruption to clean up, btw, the contractors that are connected with our military and diplomatic efforts need a major overhaul, and dramatically increased accountability.
Back when I was college-aged, my father took us on a tour of Israel, during which I had the opportunity to chat with an Israeli air force major in intelligence, a sabra - an Israeli whose family for generations had never left Israel. Supposedly he was retired (although as it turned out, not so much). I asked him what he thought of US intelligence services compared to Israel's. He made the observation that the US relied on high-tech, and spending a lot of money - a LOT of money. He said Israel relied more on clever human intelligence gathering, and were sharper and more demanding on the interpretation and understanding of what they gathered.
I think he had a point in that we are very comfortable with hi-tech, it's what we are good at doing, so we tend to gravitate to it. But I think we need to get stronger at what we are less competent, to strengthen the areas that are our weaknesses, if we are to succeed.
I think that begins with a thorough understanding of languages and culture. Obama reaching out to muslims is a good step, but it is far from enough. I would be even more encouraged if Obama makes a push for people here to learn Asian and African languages (as the way to learn the cultures). We need that for long term results in dealing with not only terrorism on a global scale, but to be globally economically competitive as well.
Did I mention how 'youthful' you sound?
ReplyDeleteYou are spot on re difference between Israeli and our intel. I presume that you flew El Al when you traveled there. They use the same process today with individual interviews of every passenger by trained personnel - in addition to high tech intelligence. Of course, the Israelis use a variety of profiling strategies, which I presume you would oppose.
With Iran, the fact may be that there is no method to prevent them from acquiring nukes, which would light a fuse in the region. Perhaps, our government knows this and is really prepared for the containment phase.
The Israelis bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The world thanked them for doing so, but probably not publicly.
My compliments Michael on your charming and witty 'save', LOL. You are not only an MD but apparently a diplomat as well.
ReplyDeleteYes, I flew El Al, and yes they have a kind of profiling, but it seems to be more of a behavioral profiling than what we think of with the term.
We happened to be in Israel for a few weeks; our flight in was during one of their more tense periods. It was my first and only experience with having to go through a cordon of leather clad guards with machine guns (at the Amsterdam airport), and to experience not only having luggage thoroughly searched, but having as well to go into a cubicle with a femaile Israeli security operative, and disrobe as a security precaution. When we landed, the plane did not taxi up to the Ben Gurion terminal, instead we had to deplane, go through another cordon of armed guards, and then take shuttles to the terminal to go through their entry procedures.
Leaving Israel involved a more extensive interviewing process about activities while in Israel than anything I've ever been through before. I had made a concerted effort to learn enough of the language while we were there to conduct that exit interview in Hebrew (sadly, I've forgotten almost all of it now - easy come easy go). Foolish me, when the nice lady interviewer, who obviously knew everywhere our tour had been, complimented me on my Hebrew, I had to brag that I had didn't know a word before arriving.......which got me another extended interview - this time in English - with a very suspicious man, who finally decided that while I might be too precocious for my own good, I wasn't actually dangerous.
After going through more cordons of people with assorted scary weaponry, I was finally the last person to board the flight the rest of my family was taking to Greece. No armed guards at the other end, an entry interview of under a minute, and out the door of the Athens airport. The contrast in airports and procedures was pretty stark.
Hi-tech intel may have inherent weaknesses.....but so does so-called human intel, lol. I hope in response to terrorism, we never as a country have to live like Israel, including spying on our own citizens.
I am a diplomat in training, a result of making gaffes so regularly. What makes you think that we are not spying on our own people?
ReplyDeleteI suppose we do spy on at least some of our own citizens - or more precisely, the intelligence services have farmed out that responsibility to contractors.
ReplyDeleteBut not in the same sense; I doubt that tourists coming to this country have every location they visit tracked, over a period of weeks --- given that according to factcheck.org, a substantial number of individuals who enter this country legally are subsequently here illegally from overstaying their visas or other legal entry paperwork.
I am incline to believe that if we were paying that kind of attention, we'd have done something more about that kind of illegal aliens.
I don't know for a fact that all Israelis are so scrutinized. We may have been an exception, as the person acting as our tour guide turned out to be using our tour as a cover for moving around Israel on 'other business'.
There are things we can learn from the Israelis, and things I hope we do not emulate.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I've been busy the past couple of days doing Mother's Day things.
In reply to a couple of points - first, Afghanistan has proven, time and again, it cannot/will not be won by main force. We will not eliminate the Taliban (nearly enough) by simply engaging in brawls/pitched battles. We have to make it so the populace doesn't prefer them to the Karzai (or other) government.
How to do this, well, that's a question for better minds than mine. Opium is the key crop of that country - the only hope, I suppose, is to either help them grow an alternate (which is being done) - and/or buy the opium from them and destroy it. It's roughly $15B (iirc) a year to do so. Much less than the cost of fighting a war.
You also MUST chase out the corrupt police, politicians and bureaucrats. That's not as challenging as it might seem. You pay for and enforce an anti-corruption department with real authority to investigate and jail folks. To accomplish this, you may have to eliminate Karzai.
One other thing, you HAVE to remove foriegn influence and control over various factions/departments in the government. I've spoken with more than one Afghan expatriot who says the problem Afghanistan currently faces is that it is pulled in 10 different directions by 10 different nations vying for power through their particular champions/departments. That must be stopped - I'm sure there are ways, such as calling the various parties in and saying, "All communication to this department MSUT go through X other department - no matter what. Any violation will result in the expulsion of the mission in question."
In short, nearly every effort has to a non-military one.
With respect to whether the CIA is operating within the borders of the United States, it might be, but if so, it is a gross violation of US law. Is the FBI spying on US citizens, yes, but it is supposed to be within the strictures of FISA or other lawfully obtained warrants. If we believe they are doing so thru other auspices, then we should rightly be OUTRAGED. Adhering to our Constitution during easy times is easy and anyone can do it. Honoring the fundamental precept that the government doesn't overstep its authority most especially simply because we are hard-pressed, is the hallmark of a truly free nation and a truly great country. I'd like to think we live in both, or at least CAN if we chose to.
Thoughtful comments reviewed. I am in favor of lawfully shifting tilting the balance more toward security and less toward our civil freedoms. We are no longer discussing an impermissible search of someone's car trunk, but are trying to protect entire cities. The raised stakes and real threats have led me to recalibrate my view. If reading my private e-mails, for example, is a necessary tool to save a city, then I would relax my right against an unreasonable search and seizure. Why should the other side be able to operate more successfully and more deadly because of our constitutional protections? Opposing this view is easy in a law school symposium on civil rights; but we are trying to protect huge numbers of innocent people. I am sure you have heard the joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
ReplyDeleteI have also heard that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice - the irony of the self-contradiction is lost on the speaker.
ReplyDeleteI have no particular issue with the government intercepting what are effectively public and private communications over the internet in this a communication age, as long as such capture can be substantiated as justified. I have no issue with the government doing so as long as the data captured is destroyed and confirmed destroyed except where such information is about a person of interest.
In a past age, we understood a nation could devestate a city, it was done during the battles of Britain, over Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, and even Schweinfurt. This is neither new to us nor is the idea of guerilla warfare new, just ask the Brits about the Punjab, the Boer War, or even our own Revolution. There are only rules in war by those interested in adhering to them, and clearly many aren't as the Malmede (sic) massacre and Sobibor (sic) proved. My sentiments aren't of naivete', I am a fairly conversent military historian - we often seem to think our age, our time, is so very different from ages past, yet it was our own second Crusade which ransacked Constantinople and killed every able bodied man, most women, and many children they could find solely for the purpose of looting the city. In truth, it was Saladin who aspoused civility toward the populaces of Damascus and Jeruselem, not Richard.
My point is, you don't adhere to laws of war, rules of conduct, because the other side does or does not, you do so because failing to leads to genocide, perpetual war, even Armmagedon. Yet, there is always a dichotomy between liberty and safety. The lawful use of governmental authority has to be watched to ensure it is used expressly and ONLY for what it was authorized - not for spying for political purpose, not for 'watching' the unpopular, not for jailing the 'suspicious' without trial, or with unfair and often skewed "evidence" available only to the government and without question (as the US government asserted must be done with respect to GitMo detainees - meaning, we could jail them, but ask for proof - oh, no 'state secrets' was claimed). The problem is that while that may have been in fact true, what about the next time or the next, when the desire is to simply jail a political enemy - no proof, no limits... down that road lies totalitarianism - couched as it often is in the name of national security or "doing whatever it takes." I'll sacrifice a bit of certainty to retain the reason we stand apart from Chile under Pinochet or Iran under Ahmadinejad.
We agree. It appears that you are not an idealogue. Do I infer that you agree that the balance between civil liberties and our safety warrants adjustment from its position in the past?
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose I should pay the same observation/respect. It appears you aren't an ideologue either, though I daresay I see many conservatives who are - no comprimise, no room for anyone in the party who isn't hardline. This includes those who are essentially unconcerned with torturing Al Qaeda members, jailing people indefinetely without charge, inventing terms like "illegal combatants", spitting on members of Congress they don't like, etc...
ReplyDeleteI often think the best thing that could happen is to put two sets of ideologues in a room and require them to stay there until they find a solution, not just a comprimise, they both can live with. This might/would include providing them with expert sources so as to allow them to explode myths\sacred cows and move forward.
We could do more on a non-military front to let countries know what sort of behaviour is unacceptable. I just saw in the news today that Iran got a seat on the UN council for Women's rights. Iran where a member of their supreme religious council blamed the recent earthquakes on immodestly dressed women. Iran who just passed laws allowing women with a suntan to be arrested because if they dressed according to sharia law they would not get a tan. Every womens rights group in Iran asked people to oppose this. Only one country had to and there would have been a secret vote to see if they got the seat and a good chance they would not. Not a single country oppossed it. If the US, Great Britian, Canada, Australia, and Europe cannot even stand up and say no to one of the worst offenders of womens rights in the world having a vote on womens rights issues in the UN how do we think we can oppose them building nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteTuck,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's likely no one objected, or that there was only one vote required to stop it. I'll check, but that sounds a little iffy.
With respect to Iran, I see them as no more and no less likely than the old Soviet Union to use a nuclear weapon, which is to say, they have generally no more interest in anhiliation (as a people) than any other people. Isreal must face the fact that whether it is Iran, Egypt or Syria, one of their neighbors will gain a nuclear weapon at some point and then the field will be what it was in 1980 - uneven, with Israel having our support, but without Israel being pre-eminent.
Ok, what appears to have happened is:
ReplyDelete1. For years, the US did not participate in any of the UN Councils, denouncing them as ineffective (probably true).
2. Obama rejoined such councils in 2009.
3. On April 23, 2010, Iran was rebuked and denied a seat on the larger UN Human Rights Council, largely due to Obama's efforts.
4. Five days later, due to back-office arm-twisting, Iran was announced by acclamation to have been given a seat on women's rights. It is not clear to me the US could have objected or even knew this was going on. It opposed Iran where it could and seems to have known about.
Tuck, respectfully, could you cite your sources for the information about what happened in the UN?
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on 1 through 3; when we get to 4, it seems pretty speculative rather than established fact. We don't know who favored or who opposed Iran getting this position, we don't know the significance (if any) of Iran getting this position (are the actions of this coucil binding or merely to make recommendations and position statements, does it require a majority or unanimous vote, etc.).
We don't even know if for example this was a face saving gesture that we agreed not to oppose for example, if western citizens like the three currently held are to be released, along the lines of the cracpot little dictator in North Korea getting his picture taken with Clinton in exchange for releasing US journalists.
Back room arm twisting is by definition out-of-sight activity that cannot be verified or only verified with great difficulty and perhaps less accuracy for a full understanding of what transpired.
My thought on reading about Iran being included in a UN group on women's rights was that as one country they couldn't stop anything, and this removed their capacity to simply ignore the UN on the premise of non-representation... a way to support moderates in Iran (and there are many) against the extremists who think naked arms cause earthquakes or who want to arrest tanned women. Iran is not a country of monolithic views -- any more than we are.
Michael,I don't think I am an ideologue either, but I am a skeptic as a practical matter. I have been skeptical of the Bush administration's efforts to protect us using warrantless wiretapping, as there does appear to have been not just a few abuses but quite a lot of abuses. I am equally skeptical of the current administration's claims of executive privilege and will be just as adamant in objecting to abuses of surveillance, including warrantless wiretaps from the Obama administration.
ReplyDeleteI have a very real concern that such wiretapping and other surveillance is not limited to contacts between US citizens or residents and people outside our borders, but rather that it has on too many occasions surveiled individuals exclusively in the US. I have concerns that it has expanded due in part to intentional abuse, and in part to slack oversight, to include intrusion where there is not a clear concern for safety against terrorism.
If I am asked to give up either my privacy, or my liberty in any way, in exchange for our alleged safety, I want to see demonstrable results that it makes a difference, and that it is not abused. I am not currently persuaded that either criteria has been met.
Iran, the paragon of women't rights hanged a 28 year old woman yesterday. Eric Holder announced that he is requesting congressional action to relax the Miranda rule, which is simpatico with some of my above comments. @dg, I don't need incontrovertible proof before adusting the balance beetween individual rights and societal safety. This standard is too high.
ReplyDeleteInterested also in what you all do for a living, when you are not sparring on the blogosphere.
Michael, I do not so much seek what you describe as 'incontrovertible proof' as much as I seek accountability and checks and balances against abuses, especially where it is evident that abuses, specifically a pattern of abuses not a few rare exceptions, has been shown. I wish, if I might borrow an analogy from your profession, to be persuaded that the cure is not worse than the problem it is intended to resolve.
ReplyDeleteCould you elaborate on the reasons offered for the hanging of the 28 year old woman in Iran?
What intrigues me about the Cairo accords is that it attempts, in conjunction and cooperation with moderate and liberal moslems, to address discrepancies in sharia and other moslem-oriented law where there are differences in how men and women are treated under the law -- where pretty much in every instance women are treated far more harshly.
If I might offer another way of looking at conflicts? We frequently use the term 'push-back', characterizing effectively the conflict of different views as entities shoving against each other. I would suggest an alternative view of strategy and tactics, that some of those conflicts are more closely akin to tug-o-wars, where each side is PULLING, not pushing, the other to come over or across an imaginary line to their side...or at least closer.
I am not familiar specifically with the UN accepting Iran to a group about women's rights, but the question did occur to me if this might be more of an occasion for pulling them towards moderation.
Re Iran: http://nyti.ms/dxyOtA
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteI have no love for the curent government of Iran.
However, understanding a government is oppressive isn't the same as saying they are genocidal or suicidal.
Most despots desire one thing above all else, namely, staying in power. Even those which are unstable - and I think we can count both Stalin and Mao as in that crowd - aren't necessarily interested in seeing their families, loved ones, and folks they know killed in some sort of massive war or conflagration.
Iran specifically is not/has not shown itself to be an expansionist state - IT was invaded by Iraq, not the other way around. Instead, it exports it's influence thru proxies, whether those are Hezzbolah and Hamas or the Shiaa majority in Iraq.
I have little fear of a nuclear equipped Iran launching attacks upon Israel or anyone else. I also have little fear of them providing WMD to terrorists, for had they wanted to, they could have LONG ago provided them to Hezzbolah and/or Hamas to use in Lebanon and Israel by providing chemical weapons of various forms (VX, Sarin, Phosgene, etc..). There simply isn't empirical evidence to support the fear we seem to be associating with the Mullocracy of Iran.
Similarly, North Korea (clearly headed by a wacko) seeks to act threatingly openly, but secretively in terms of the kinds of attacks it choses to make.
I think all nations understand the use of WMD is generally traceable (though not with 100% certainty), and will result in extreme retribution should they be used, even by a surrogate.
I did a quick search on the hanging of a woman in Iran but only found fairly sketchy coverage.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised that Iran hangs dissidents. Much as I am inclined to be highly critical of both the domestic and foreign policies of Iran, ESPECIALLY towards women, if - Huge IF - these individuals DID participate in bombings, the consequences are not unreasonable.
Which is to say I don't have a lot of faith in their statements about who they execute and why. But I also don't condone or approve bombings of the knnd they were accused of doing.
Good thing for me I don't live in Iran..........the country would have disappeared into a giant hole of earthquakes according to that one lunatic cleric. As a flaming redhead, and admmittedly vain about it, I don't cover up my hair unless some sort of helmet is a safety necessity or it is so darn cold that my ears will freeze and fall off if I don't, LOL.
Well this isn't the article I saw when I made the comment. You know how it goes, you read an article, follow an interesting link, then another, and another. Three days later Dog asks me where it came from, I have no idea. Here is another article though telling how we managed to keep Iran off the UN council on human rights and apparently while we were doing that they were negotiating without our knowledge to get a seat on the UN council for the status of women.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050303950.html
Thanks Tuck, for the link.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reading more on this. The conclusion that this represents a failure for the US diplomatically is still a bit speculative conclusion. From indications in this article, we won the larger diplomatic battle. We may yet get Iran removed if that is the decision, as it appears from this that the US is back to using the diplomatic process of the UN to reform from within to significant success.
I applaud Obama for doing that much; we'll see if he can use the situation with Iran and the council on women to better effect as perhaps leverage down the road, through the Cairo accords and other public recognition of women's civil rights in islamic countries. Sometimes big steps, sometimes baby steps.
At least he is on this field playing; Bush packing up his marbles and going home, for all intents, didn't seem to benefit us at all with the rest of the world.
I previously asked what you guys/gal do for a living - dead air. I guess you're all under cover.
ReplyDeleteNot intentional dead air.. I thought the question was for DG.
ReplyDeleteI am a Director of Customer Relations and Implementations for a banking and brokerage sweep service.
I previously was a systems/IT project manager for about 10 years, and prior to that worked in Health Care administration as a claims examiner, Auditor, and Manager/Director. I left that when the entire industry started down the toilet.
Sorry - I got caught up in the topic, and some other writing!
ReplyDeleteI work with breeding and training dogs, and writing.
One more - we can add Liz Cheney to the group ranting that Shahzad should never have been given Miranda rights.
ReplyDelete