Month: March 2010

As tensions escalate between the administration and Israel, there seems to be growing concern that the American people at large are getting wise to their own interests; an anxiousness over whether we will start looking more closely at whether Israel’s national security interests are in fact, American national security interests. Mostly because the protracted conflict could be putting our troops overseas risk. As John Mearscheimer wrote this week, “if that message begins to resonate with the American public, unconditional support for the Jewish state is likely to evaporate.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s treatment of visiting VP Biden in announcing new settlements crossed a line, critics have pointed out across the board. Neoconservative hawks here in the U.S are playing those implications down, of course, seeming very sensitive right now to the suggestion that American-Israeli interests in the region may be diverging.

Thus, the ADL’s curious rebuke of Gen. David Petraeus after he testified this week regarding the consequences of a failed peace mission:

The assumptions Gen. Petraeus presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee wrongly attribute “insufficient progress” in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and “a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel” as significantly impeding the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in dealing with the Iranian influences in the region. It is that much more of a concern to hear this coming from such a great American patriot and hero.

The General’s assertions lead to the illusory conclusion that if only there was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. could successfully complete its mission in the region.

Funny this doesn’t sound much different from what David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said on PBS’ News Hour on Tuesday:

…This is a very contested point that General Petraeus raised today, because, look …nobody serious believes that, if you solve this conflict, it is an open sesame, and it unlocks all the other or any conflicts in the Middle East… Where our disagreement is whether this will fundamentally make a difference in the way America is perceived. I mean, we all would agree, I would think, that, you know, if people are shooting at America in Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s because of that local conflict…

[Extremists] don’t say, oh, there was progress on the Arab-Israeli front, no shooting today. So, that’s not the issue. The issue is, is this a layer of anti-Americanism that is fundamental? And I would argue that there is like 20 layers there. This might be one out of 20, and it should be resolved for its own reasons, but it’s not decisive in these other theaters.

But does any of us think that al-Qaida will go away if this issue is solved? They never cared about this issue at all. They’re a Johnny-come-lately to this question.

Oh really? Is that why a U.S military commission at Guantanamo Bay convicted this al Qaeda PR man, for editing and disseminating this video in before his capture in 2004? Because al Qaeda was a ‘Johnny-come-lately’ to the Palestinian cause? Maybe I missed something.

Furthermore, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the longstanding partnership between the U.S and Israel has not fomented extremism in the region, when it was a primary goal of the neoconservative war planners to overthrow Saddam Hussein as part of a greater vision of “securing the realm” just a decade ago. And whatever happened to ‘The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad’?

A little jingle that’s lost its juice, I guess, now that there is a pro-Iranian government in Iraq, which no matter how the elections shake out, does not seem to be going anywhere.

Marc Lynch has a fascinating post examining a recent (unofficial) document posted on a jihadist forum, entitled A Strategic Plan to Improve the Political Position of the Islamic State of Iraq. The whole post is worth reading for insight into the current state of thinking about the Iraq war on the part of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (AQM) and its supporters, but I was particularly struck by this passage, discussing the document’s take on the reasons for AQM’s declining fortunes since 2006-7:

It explains its setbacks, which it argues came at the height of its power and influence, on what it calls two smart and effective U.S. moves in 2006-07: an effective U.S. media and psychological campaign, which convinced many that the “mujahideen” had committed atrocities against Iraqis and killed thousands of Muslims; and the Awakenings, achieved through its manipulation of the tribes and the “nationalist resistance.” The document doesn’t mention the “Surge” much at all, at least not in terms of the troop escalation which most Americans have in mind.

Back in the U.S., of course, hawks have been keen to emphasize the third element–the troop escalation–at the expense of the other two. After all, to suggest that the Awakenings bore primary responsibility for the drop in violence comes uncomfortably close to implying that jihadists are not a monolithic group of bloodthirsty fanatics who “hate us for our freedom”; instead, it might suggest that we should actually talk to them and perhaps (gasp!) offer the relative moderates among them incentives to defect. Classic appeasement, in other words. Similarly, although talk of winning “hearts and minds” is all the rage in counterinsurgency (COIN) discussions these days, hawks have been careful not to focus too much on the role that atrocities (by the U.S. or its enemies) play in swaying public opinion; that might imply that the U.S. should, for instance, close Guantanamo and Bagram, thoroughly reform its detainee system, or halt the drone war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Far better, from the hawks’ perspective, to credit the drop in violence and the wane in AQM’s fortunes entirely to the surge. Doing so sends a nice unambiguous message: when in doubt, the solution is always more troops, more money, more war.

Iraq experts continue to vigorously debate which factors were most important in causing the drop in violence, and in any case I am no Iraq expert myself. Nonetheless, it is striking that strategists associated with AQM itself appear to attribute their downfall primarily to public perceptions of their own atrocities, and to the U.S. decision to reach out to former members of the insurgency, rather than to the surge itself.

In a typical rant, The New Republic editor/publisher Marty Peretz prefaced a rambling declaration of victory in Iraq with these charming words:

There were moments – long moments – during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Peretz is quoted by Glenn Greenwald, who says most of what needs to be said about Peretz’s latest display of bigotry. I’m sure we can expect a 4000-word J’accuse from Leon Wieseltier condemning his boss’s racism any day now.

In any case, if one views Peretz’s post now, one finds that the offending sentence has been changed, without any indication that it used to read differently:

There were moments – long moments – during the Iraq war when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture like this in the Arab world turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

The fact that Peretz changed the post (however nasty his revised formulation remains) looks like a tacit admission that he knows he crossed the line. In that case, however, it seems that he should provide an explanation (not to say an apology). Does he believe that Arabs are in fact congenitally shifty and untrustworthy? Does he concede that his slur against Arabs was unacceptable? To simply change his post covertly in the hopes that no one will notice is surely the most cowardly way to deal with the issue.

I realize that it is unwise to waste much time on Peretz. He is an embarrassment, as even his own staffers generally recognize, and the only reason that TNR is forced to publish his rantings is that he owns the magazine. Still, if Peretz wants to be taken seriously in public debate it seems reasonable to demand that he conform to some minimal standards of honesty, decency, and responsibility.

On Thursday, March 18, from 9am to 1pm (EST), the Cato Institute will feature a mini-conference:

Escalate or Withdraw? Conservatives and the War in Afghanistan
Will conservatives return to their traditional roots and ultimately oppose the war in Afghanistan? Can “nation building” succeed in the midst of that country’s bloody insurgency? What constitutes “success,” and what price should we be willing to pay for it? Please join us for a lively discussion.

It will be interesting to see who says what, since it will present an interesting mix:

• Christopher Preble and Malou Innocent, solidly antiwar analysts at Cato
• Tony Blankley, Washington Times editor who recently came out for US withdrawal from Afghanistan
• Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA), who recently came out against the surge in Afghanistan
• Freshman Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) who has been an ally to libertarian causes but an unknown quantity on foreign policy
• MSNBC host Joe Scarborough (who knows what he’ll say)
• Conservative leaders Grover Norquist and Don Devine, increasingly skeptical of US foreign adventures

The event is free-of-charge and open to the public, but requires reservations. To register for this event, please fill out the form at the bottom of this page and click submit or email events@cato.org, fax (202) 371-0841, or call (202) 789-5229 by noon, Wednesday, March 17. Please arrive early. Seating is limited and not guaranteed.

The event will also be broadcast live on the web. Check here on Thursday, March 18 from 9am to 1pm (EST).

A post/picture like this, everyday, might get the point across (though, here, it’s preaching to the choir). But as Mr. Cox suggests, something like this would have to be squeezed onto the boob tube somewhere between segments of  “Lost” or after those hilarious “Slap Chop” commercials in order to get the rapt attention of so-called “real America.”

I think it bears passing along. Thank you David Glenn Cox for saying it plain.

From Cox:

I want you to look very closely at this picture and try and keep it in your minds eye. This was a perfectly healthy twenty two-year-old young man who in the service of his country got half of his head blown off. I think that’s important, I think that’s newsworthy. Let me tell you how newsworthy I think it is. I think that it’s more important than chocolate cake recipes and far more important than comic book reviews. It is more important than who fell and whose swell at the winter Olympic games.

It is far more important than any self-serving load of crap banged out by Pseudo doctor Amy. It is more important than American Idol or Lost or any other mindless goat droppings the public chooses to chew on. This is some American mother’s son, her little boy, he may be gay or straight or transgender but his life is fucked forever.

How did this come to happen to this poor mother’s son? It came to happen because the people in the media who are supposed to foster a public debate on such public issues as war instead used their franchise to promote articles about chocolate cake and comic book reviews. They see their free press as free to choose not to look when bad thinks happen. They feel no need to explain to his parents or to anyone that the war that blew off half of this poor boys head was based on out and out lies.

It was a war perpetrated by people who hoped to gain from it be it in oil or pipelines or service contracts and like the media they don’t care that this mother’s son is mangled and mutilated. Do you care? I’ve been married twice for a combined twenty-five years and in that time I doubt my wives ever baked a chocolate cake. I don’t read comic books or watch goat crap TV but you see I’ve got a son about this boy’s age. My heart aches and my mind fills with rage because the people that have the power and authority to show this picture would rather talk about American Idol and from where I sit that makes them an accomplice to a war crime.

Because not content to ignore the current victims they support more crimes and call for more wars. Several years ago in Iraq parents waited for their children at a bus stop. An errant coalition missile struck the bus stop and blew the elementary school age children to pieces. Needless to say this wasn’t widely reported but the parents in a frenzy began fighting over the body parts of their children. Little arms and legs, little headless torsos identifiable only by the shirt or dress they were wearing. Imagine the horror, imagine the type of people who could do such a thing. How do they live with themselves? How do they sleep at night?

They do it by watching Lost and American Idol and by eating chocolate cake. They read comic books and watch sports. It makes life easy because the media will not intrude on their fantasy world but instead will promote the fantasy. Oh, but who won the gold metal in curling and who was eliminated on American Idol.

Iraq war Coalition Deaths 4,696

Injured 30,000

Iraqi civilian deaths and injured, 1,366,650

Afghanistan coalition Deaths 1,659

American taxpayers bill as of today $964,044,305,874