BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran envoy 'abducted in Baghdad'
The Bush administration's new strategy in Iraq is fairly opaque to the average American. The war in Iraq is a very complex animal. What we see in the media is a confusing, maddening mish mash of violence and blood served up by a media that understands very little of what it is showing us.
So when things that are significant happen, events which are evidence of the state of war, we are apt to miss them. The abduction of an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad is one such event. Jalal Sharafi, the Iranian embassy' second secretary was abducted from his car by soldiers in Iraqi army uniforms. According to witnesses, the gunmen had the uniforms of the Iraqi army's elite 36th Commando Battalion -- part of the Iraqi Special Operations Forces Brigade, a unit proficient in counter insurgent operations.
The Iranians have accused the U.S of being behind it. Its quite possibly true. Sharafi had the kind of diplomatic job that is a typical cover for spies. If he was an Iranian intelligence operative of any importance, snatching him would throw a monkey wrench into Iranian operations in the country as the US ratchets up its new strategy. The President has been very clear that he will put pressure on the Iranians activities in Iraq. This action, if it was masterminded by the US is punctuating the President's message: Iran is vulnerable and puts itself in the line of fire if it continues to oppose US plans in Iraq.
The US' success in Iraq is heavily dependent on the Iranians changing their behavior in Iraq. The US is embarking on a path intended to convince the Iranians that the risks involved in continuing to destabilize Iraq are a lot greater than they think, and further that the US is committed to its course in Iraq. This abduction, if it was US sponsored, lets that message be sent without overt military action, something the US has no appetite for. Covert war the US can handle at the moment and if the US hits hard covertly, it may be enough to make the Iranians back off. The US strategic position in Iraq is very weak. This tactic might well not work at all, but its one of the few options the President actually has.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Report: Saudis may back Sunnis
This news item, carried by CNN on Dec. 13th, is a major reason why the US cannot simply leave Iraq. As tempting and desirable as that may be, to do so would be to invite a wider regional conflict that will inevitably draw us back to the region and perhaps in an even worse strategic positition than we are at present. Iran is a Shiite power. Saudi is a Sunni power, as are several of the surrounding countries in the region. These Sunni countries will not want to see the rise of a Shiitte Iran to dominate the region and they will take steps to preserve their interests if the United States were to withdraw and leave behind a power vacumn. Without the United States to act as a check on Iranian power, they would have little choice.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Six Muslim imams taken off plane - CNN.com
A clear case of flying while Arab (FWA)
I watched some footage on CNN's website regarding the removal of the Imams from the plane. Specifically, I saw an interview with a young white woman and an older white man. When they asked them to recall what about the men seemed suspicious or of concern, they noted the following:
"One was wearing sunglasses and it was dark on the plane"
"They were kinda of keeping to themselves"
"They were together in the terminal, but sat in different seats when they boarded"
"They were praying together on the plane"
Every one of the things they noted was perfectly innocent. I'm not sure the average white person would recognize the fact that what they keyed off of was the muslim appearance of these men, not their behaviors, but anybody that has ever been profiled can see it a mile away. The guys were scholars in Minneapolis for a conference. The conference organizers even notified local law enforcement and the FBI ahead of time to help avoid issues. When asked to leave the plane, they refused and they got arrested. I can't say I blame them. I would have been pissed off and I think my attitude might have been, "F**k it, arrest me then". They took the guys off the plane, interrogated them, then released them. US Airways refused to put them on another flight. Its a crying shame. Comes with the territory these days, just like being scrutinized by the police when you are a brother, but still, its a shame.
I watched some footage on CNN's website regarding the removal of the Imams from the plane. Specifically, I saw an interview with a young white woman and an older white man. When they asked them to recall what about the men seemed suspicious or of concern, they noted the following:
"One was wearing sunglasses and it was dark on the plane"
"They were kinda of keeping to themselves"
"They were together in the terminal, but sat in different seats when they boarded"
"They were praying together on the plane"
Every one of the things they noted was perfectly innocent. I'm not sure the average white person would recognize the fact that what they keyed off of was the muslim appearance of these men, not their behaviors, but anybody that has ever been profiled can see it a mile away. The guys were scholars in Minneapolis for a conference. The conference organizers even notified local law enforcement and the FBI ahead of time to help avoid issues. When asked to leave the plane, they refused and they got arrested. I can't say I blame them. I would have been pissed off and I think my attitude might have been, "F**k it, arrest me then". They took the guys off the plane, interrogated them, then released them. US Airways refused to put them on another flight. Its a crying shame. Comes with the territory these days, just like being scrutinized by the police when you are a brother, but still, its a shame.
Monday, November 20, 2006
KRT Wire | 11/20/2006 | Rangel says he's serious about reinstating the draft
KRT Wire | 11/20/2006 | Rangel says he's serious about reinstating the draft
Now, this is precisley the kind of absurdity that I do not want to see the Democrats engaging in. While its an arguement to say that the threats we face currently in the world require a larger military (a view echoed by Abizaid in the recent hearings), addressing that need with the draft is not necessary. Beefing up pay and benefits for the armed forces could accomplish the same without all of the attendant issues that come with conscription.
The only reason for Rangel to float this is as a way to embarrass the President and rub his nose in the mess that Iraq certainly is. But thats not what the vote on 11/7 was about. The American people already know its a mess and that we are not winning. We want Congress and the President to come up with a strategy for winning, not to play political games with it. This is the kind of political stupidity that left unchecked will certainly damage the hopes of the Democrats to beat back another decade long absence from the majority.
Its also an interesting light on Pelosi as speaker. Either this is the kind of posturing her liberal viewpoint is comfortable with (a bad thing) OR, she does not have the political strength as Speaker to enforce discipline or forge consensus on strategy with powerful committee chairs like Rangel (also a bad thing). Either way, this is playing politics with the war, and the public is just not going to stand for it. Dems will pay a bitter price in 08 if they don't get a grip.
Now, this is precisley the kind of absurdity that I do not want to see the Democrats engaging in. While its an arguement to say that the threats we face currently in the world require a larger military (a view echoed by Abizaid in the recent hearings), addressing that need with the draft is not necessary. Beefing up pay and benefits for the armed forces could accomplish the same without all of the attendant issues that come with conscription.
The only reason for Rangel to float this is as a way to embarrass the President and rub his nose in the mess that Iraq certainly is. But thats not what the vote on 11/7 was about. The American people already know its a mess and that we are not winning. We want Congress and the President to come up with a strategy for winning, not to play political games with it. This is the kind of political stupidity that left unchecked will certainly damage the hopes of the Democrats to beat back another decade long absence from the majority.
Its also an interesting light on Pelosi as speaker. Either this is the kind of posturing her liberal viewpoint is comfortable with (a bad thing) OR, she does not have the political strength as Speaker to enforce discipline or forge consensus on strategy with powerful committee chairs like Rangel (also a bad thing). Either way, this is playing politics with the war, and the public is just not going to stand for it. Dems will pay a bitter price in 08 if they don't get a grip.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Democrats to Press Bush to Redeploy Troops in Iraq - New York Times
Democrats to Press Bush to Redeploy Troops in Iraq - New York Times
Its been a while since I got into this blog. The mid term elections have come and gone and the Dems took control. Now the question is whether they will foolishly over reach and misread the American people, or restrain the urge to whole sale reverse course in Iraq.
First off, the Dems won not because they have such great ideas for running the country, but because Americans are convinced that the President's conduct of the war is not working and they were fed up with 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the White House in which the Republicans forgot who the heck they were supposed to be.
On Iraq, I think Americans are clear that Iraq is a mess and the administration's strategy for prosecuting it is not adequate to the complexity of the situation. Oh yeah, I know, a lot of people have no idea what Iraq was to accomplish in the first place. To recap, the Bush administration took down Iraq in order to lean on the surrounding countries more effectively to obtain their help in going after terrorist networks. This limited goal was achieved, we got a ot of cooperation from surrounding countries. The problem became mission creep as it went from muscling regional players to implanting democracy to full scale nation building in a socio-cultural political situation the administration never fully understood. As Colin told them, "if you break it, you own it".
While there are plenty of Americans who say bring the troops home now, I think most recognize that having gone in there and wreaked all this havoc, its not a responsible or prudent thing to simply up and leave. Furthermore, the Iraqi people have been plunged into a living hell and I think there is a moral obligation on this country to try to salvage some hope for their futures from this mess.
The other issue was corruption and plain old partisan power politics. The republicans have ruled with an iron fist, and Congress and the White House just scratched each other's back. Congress let the President do whatever he wanted more or less, backing him with legislation. The White House for its part, hasn't vetoed one bit of the hysterical spending being done by Congress. The deficit is getting hammered and the corporate and moneyed interests of this country were being entrenched while the little guy got screwed.
But as the article in the NYT highlights, its now time to see if the democrats are truly able to govern. Iraq is a complex situation. Bush's strategy has failed because it didn't recognize that, and the Dems already sound guilty of the same failure of understanding with their calls for redeployment in the short term. There was a strategic rationale to the Iraq war. The problem is that the war opened up a large can of worms, a Pandora's box that Bush needs to close. The downside is that there are no good options in Iraq now. All we have are bad choices. The Dems make a mistake if they think that the simplistic answer of just bring the troops home is the right move. Bush's strategy failed for lack of respect for the complexity of the problem. The Dems are poised to make a similar mistake.
Its been a while since I got into this blog. The mid term elections have come and gone and the Dems took control. Now the question is whether they will foolishly over reach and misread the American people, or restrain the urge to whole sale reverse course in Iraq.
First off, the Dems won not because they have such great ideas for running the country, but because Americans are convinced that the President's conduct of the war is not working and they were fed up with 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the White House in which the Republicans forgot who the heck they were supposed to be.
On Iraq, I think Americans are clear that Iraq is a mess and the administration's strategy for prosecuting it is not adequate to the complexity of the situation. Oh yeah, I know, a lot of people have no idea what Iraq was to accomplish in the first place. To recap, the Bush administration took down Iraq in order to lean on the surrounding countries more effectively to obtain their help in going after terrorist networks. This limited goal was achieved, we got a ot of cooperation from surrounding countries. The problem became mission creep as it went from muscling regional players to implanting democracy to full scale nation building in a socio-cultural political situation the administration never fully understood. As Colin told them, "if you break it, you own it".
While there are plenty of Americans who say bring the troops home now, I think most recognize that having gone in there and wreaked all this havoc, its not a responsible or prudent thing to simply up and leave. Furthermore, the Iraqi people have been plunged into a living hell and I think there is a moral obligation on this country to try to salvage some hope for their futures from this mess.
The other issue was corruption and plain old partisan power politics. The republicans have ruled with an iron fist, and Congress and the White House just scratched each other's back. Congress let the President do whatever he wanted more or less, backing him with legislation. The White House for its part, hasn't vetoed one bit of the hysterical spending being done by Congress. The deficit is getting hammered and the corporate and moneyed interests of this country were being entrenched while the little guy got screwed.
But as the article in the NYT highlights, its now time to see if the democrats are truly able to govern. Iraq is a complex situation. Bush's strategy has failed because it didn't recognize that, and the Dems already sound guilty of the same failure of understanding with their calls for redeployment in the short term. There was a strategic rationale to the Iraq war. The problem is that the war opened up a large can of worms, a Pandora's box that Bush needs to close. The downside is that there are no good options in Iraq now. All we have are bad choices. The Dems make a mistake if they think that the simplistic answer of just bring the troops home is the right move. Bush's strategy failed for lack of respect for the complexity of the problem. The Dems are poised to make a similar mistake.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
CNN.com - Carroll walks unharmed into Sunni�party office - Mar 30, 2006
CNN.com - Carroll walks unharmed into Sunni party office - Mar 30, 2006
Qoute"Ex-hostage says she was 'treated very well' during 3-month ordeal"
Huh? Is it just me, or is anybody else confused by this? I'm getting really angry listening to the statements of this woman. She has been held captive for months, threatened with death. The terrorists released video of her showing her sobbing in fear for her life with guns pointed at her head. Then she gets released and says she was treated well and "its important for people to know that". Somebody help me understand this. They threaten her life, put her family and friends through hell, have the whole world horrified that the next video we see will be of her getting her head severed, and the first words out of her mouth are to praise the kidnappers? Next she will be criticizing the policy of the government that has been working to get her out alive.
Did she think her kidnappers were so considerate when they blew her poor Iraqi driver's brains out all over the road when she was snatched? How do you get released and come out praising people who threatened to kill you and wasted your driver, your friend? What is that? I've gone from being sympathetic to her plight to being disgusted with her comments.
Maybe she will speak more candidly when she is on US soil again. Maybe thats what she has to do until she actually gets the hell out of the country. But if she gets back to the states and wants to be critical of the government and praise the kidnappers who threatened her life, killed her driver in cold blood and put her family through hell and made them beg for her life, I will puke.
Qoute"Ex-hostage says she was 'treated very well' during 3-month ordeal"
Huh? Is it just me, or is anybody else confused by this? I'm getting really angry listening to the statements of this woman. She has been held captive for months, threatened with death. The terrorists released video of her showing her sobbing in fear for her life with guns pointed at her head. Then she gets released and says she was treated well and "its important for people to know that". Somebody help me understand this. They threaten her life, put her family and friends through hell, have the whole world horrified that the next video we see will be of her getting her head severed, and the first words out of her mouth are to praise the kidnappers? Next she will be criticizing the policy of the government that has been working to get her out alive.
Did she think her kidnappers were so considerate when they blew her poor Iraqi driver's brains out all over the road when she was snatched? How do you get released and come out praising people who threatened to kill you and wasted your driver, your friend? What is that? I've gone from being sympathetic to her plight to being disgusted with her comments.
Maybe she will speak more candidly when she is on US soil again. Maybe thats what she has to do until she actually gets the hell out of the country. But if she gets back to the states and wants to be critical of the government and praise the kidnappers who threatened her life, killed her driver in cold blood and put her family through hell and made them beg for her life, I will puke.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Joseph P. Phillips: Beheadings in Iraq
NPR : The Tavis Smiley Show for Tuesday, July 6, 2004
A commentator on the Tavis Smiley show today drew what I thought was an apt analogy between the Islamic extremists and Jihadists killing Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, and the white supremacist thugs of the early 20th century (the Klan and related sorts). He talked about todays practice of beheading as a tactic to initimidate and terrify for political purposes, and compared it to the practice of lynching black people in the early 1900s. Like the white supremacists of that time, Jihadists, largely ignorant, motivated by hatred and with a poverty of vision, use these tactics to terrify their target population (Americans, or other Iraqis) hoping to stop the march of history and progress towards a better society. But just like America in the 1900s, those tactics did not stop thousands of ordinary citizens from moving forward towards a more just society. I don't think its going to stop the Iraqis either.
A commentator on the Tavis Smiley show today drew what I thought was an apt analogy between the Islamic extremists and Jihadists killing Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, and the white supremacist thugs of the early 20th century (the Klan and related sorts). He talked about todays practice of beheading as a tactic to initimidate and terrify for political purposes, and compared it to the practice of lynching black people in the early 1900s. Like the white supremacists of that time, Jihadists, largely ignorant, motivated by hatred and with a poverty of vision, use these tactics to terrify their target population (Americans, or other Iraqis) hoping to stop the march of history and progress towards a better society. But just like America in the 1900s, those tactics did not stop thousands of ordinary citizens from moving forward towards a more just society. I don't think its going to stop the Iraqis either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
