International Relations

[rmnunez]

Watch out for Muslims with scars on their foreheads:

>In Spain a witness identified Rabei Osman El Sayed, “the Egyptian", as one of the persons seen prior to March 11th at the property where the explosives used in the Atocha attack were assembled. In the warrant issued for his arrest, Judge Del Olmo noted “some of the accused recognize (the Egyptian) as known to them from his visits to Spain, with whom the maintain close and friendly ties, some even noting his travels to France and residence in Italy, which suggests their level of friendship". During questioning suspects heard a recording made by Italian police questioning the Egyptian when he is heard stating “the Madrid attack was my project and the martyrs who died (refering to the 7 suicides upon a police raid in Leganes weeks later) were my dearest friends.” >Rabei Osman is considered a very devout man and medical examiners have determined the scar on his forehead is a “prayer mark” that the more fervent believers inflict upon themselves by striking their heads on the ground when they pray.

http://estadis.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/259419.html

[Nono]

Quote by: National Review Fascistic neighbors rightly see elections in Iraq as near fatal to their own bankrupt regimes.

There must be an editing slip-up here. I'm sure the author meant to say elections accepted as free and fair by the populace. Because, obviously, elections that are rigged, or rammed through by nervous Americans before they can possibly produce a legitimate result, will play very nicely into the hands of Iraq's fascistic neighbours, who will chorus: "Y'see?"

[rmnunez]

Nope, I suspect Hanson (the author) would expect any sort of elections (honest, free and fair or otherwise) would have the same impact on fascistic neighbors who have no elections, their subjects would realize there was an alternative to continued fascism.

I would expect a terribly fraudulent outcome rammed through by the US would have a negative impact that the fascistic neighbors could point at and gloat over, but I doubt any that egregious will be done and would anticipate they will decry the results regardless of the integrity of the process.

[Nono]

Quote by: rmnunez I (...) would anticipate they will decry the results regardless of the integrity of the process.

You're probably right, they will.
It's terribly unfortunate that US mendacity throughout the Iraq thing will make this so easy for them. Indeed, the fact that the US has not a shred of credibility left plays very nicely into the hands of these regimes (for an example of this effect elsewhere, see Darfur).

Another thing that will make it easy for them to write off any election results is the marred nature of the recent elections in the US itself.

[rmnunez]

George Friedman’s book America´s Secret War:

After Tora Bora, the US tried to mount a global covert offensive against al Qaeda. It realized that it didn't have the ability to do so. It also recognized that unless Saudi Arabia cooperated with the US in shutting down money flows, there was no chance of success. Saudi Arabia was not cooperative. http://www.americassecretwar.com/abo...summaries.html

The Saudis are a problem and its difficult to understand why. If it is postulated they support Islamic fundamentalist terrorism with lots of money, this must be because the elite there is religiously fanatical.

In a recent tape attributed to OBL:

The speaker in the purported bin Laden tape, speaking in calm and even tones, accused Saudi rulers of "violating God's rules," a common theme of bin Laden, who accuses Saudi rulers of being insufficiently Islamic and too close to the "infidel" US. "The sins the regime committed are great ... it practiced injustices against the people, violating their rights, humiliating their pride," the speaker said. He accused the Saudi royal family of misspending public money while "millions of people are suffering from poverty and deprivation." While calling for change, the speaker scoffed at overtures such as promised municipal elections and a national dialogue Saudi rulers recently initiated to open public debate on democratization and other issues. "This hasn't changed anything ... the best they can do is that they will go into the elections game as happened before in Yemen and Jordan or Egypt and move in a vicious circle for dozens of years, this is regardless of the fact that it is prohibited to enter the infidel legislative councils," the speaker said. The main statement was preceded by Quranic verses, a rhetorical device typical of bin Laden. Addressing Saudi rulers, the taped statement attributed to bin Laden said: "You must know that people are fed up ... security will not be able to stop them." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041216/D870T1OO0.html

So I’d expect the Saudis will be coming around to a US perspective on this soon, unless the elites in government are different from the elites now supporting terrorism. I suspect it’s a bit of a family affair with the patriarchic government very concerned over Islamic fundamentalism and some dissenting relatives motivated by the mad visions Islamic fundamentalism.
Friedman concludes:

The US is winning the war. Al Qaeda has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals. There has been no uprising in the Islamic world, no regimes toppled. In fact, most Islamic governments have increased their cooperation with the US. Al Qaeda has been backed against a wall. The game is far from over, but the US certainly has the lead -in spite of an extraordinary array of blunders, some inexplicable.

I wonder how they will handle the Saudi situation. If intervention in Iraq was about Saudi Arabia, then with US bases in Iraq and diminished dependance on Saudi oil, they should be able to pressure the Kingdom into compliance, get them to stop funding. This tape ought to help too.

[rmnunez]

The shape of things to come:
Broad anti-terrorism bill advances easily in Russian legislation

The bill would give Russian authorities the right to impose a 60-day security clampdown in any part of the country solely on suspicion that a terror attack was being planned. The draft would allow the imposition of "a state of terrorist danger" if authorities receive information - even unconfirmed - that suggests an attack is being planned. During that period, even if no attack takes place, the authorities could introduce emergency measures, including banning public demonstrations, tapping telephones, conducting spot street checks and restricting movements of people and traffic. (IHT)

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2004/12/17/news/moscow.html

[rmnunez]

[p] A jogger passes a billboard with scenes from Iraq's U.S.-run Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib, set up on Havana's seafront boulevard Malecon across from the U.S. Interest Section, December 17, 2004. The United States had rejected Cuba's demand to remove Christmas lights in front of the American mission, which include the number 75, in reference to 75 pro-democracy activists imprisoned in Cuba. Photo by Claudia Daut/Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7128419

[rmnunez]

The US must crush the Sunni insurgency in Iraq before it provokes an exclusivist and angry Shia political identity willing to inflict on the Sunnis what the Baath did to the Shia. If sectarian wrath is provoked, the process towards democratizing Iraq will get stuck. The US must make sure the democratic process, regardless of the violence, keeps moving forward. As long as the process satisfactorily advances, Iran will not gain traction in Iraq, where most think the mullahs belong in the mosque rather than in government. If level heads prevail, Iranian influence is threatened.

Iran knows this and dreads the success of traditional Shia in Iraq, they are desperately trying to foment a Sunni/Shia clash. Its why we see the resumption of suicide-bombing attacks in the holy Shia cities of Najaf and Karbala, which was stopped when previous bombings intensified anti-Iranian instead of anti-Sunni passions. As some have observed, recent attacks on Shia shrines show desperation, rather than "insurgent" strength.

Iraq now hosts a regional war that cannot be won there alone since the enemy is based throughout the region with bases, headquarters and support beyond Iraqi border. The enemy’s power is directly proportional to American inability to see the true nature of the war, limiting the scope of the campaign.

To prevail in Iraq, the US should help restive, disenfranchised communities in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia who are looking for political support. I’m distressed the US supports free and fair elections in Ukraine, but says nothing about the need for such in Iran and Syria. The US could get mileage out of advancing together, both their values and their interests, in the war against Islamic fundamentalists.

[PatrickHenry]

Nunez, you are a curiosity to me. You are one of the original denizens of volconvo(wow, August of 2003!), yet your post total shows you are nowhere near as addicted as some of us are. You are a very reasonable debater, not given to hyperbole or venom. You seem familiar with the US system, even to the point of agreeing with the official line in most cases. Yet you refer to the "gringos," reside in Mexico, and carry a Hispanic surname ('scuse me if I have you wrong...)

I wonder, are you associated with the US gov or military in some way, and working in Mexico, DF? And if so, why do you use the term "gringos?" I know you have answered this specific question before, and it has nothing to do with the thread, but I am curious about the context of your debate. If you choose to ignore the question, I understand...

On topic, are you familiar with Chalmers Johnson's arguments in his books, Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire?

He says that our system of hundreds of military bases is indicative of two things: One is militarism as a means of doing government foreign policy. And the other is that the bases constitute the colonies that other civilizations used civilians for. Does either of those arguments resonate with you?

[rmnunez]

PH, I work for neither the US government nor its military, I'll leave the question on gringoes as its been addressed, consider it a stylistic feature.

On the US practice of establishing military bases overseas, I don't think these are like paralels to colonial outposts rather than in response to strategic imperatives. The US engaged the Soviets for 50 years trying to contain them encircling the Soviet Union and this produced some of the bases. Others resulted from the occupation after WW2 of Pacific islands the Japanese had seized. Elsewhere alliances were forged to counter Soviet encroachments and local regimes were able to secure arrangements for bases (and American investment) by magnifying their opposition to communism or the threat it posed to them in particular.

The US, due to the magnitude of its international trade, is naturally more concerned with stability and access to markets in remote locations. Those concerns can be better addressed thanks to the military bases. No other country individually has that level of trade and for many of the closer contenders, their colonial experience does imply such an interest in basing overseas.

I do think foreign military bases are an instrument of US foreign policy, but don't see anything wrong with this, in fact it seems sensible to me. I'd expect other governments would make use of such an instrument if they had one.

[simba]

One thing you have all failed to mention is the CIA terorist activities around world ie toppling legitimate govs. such as in Ageria simply on the ground that an islamic government would be counter to US interest. There are so many examples of that in third world countries mainly. My main point is that all these actions are never in the interet of human rights or peace but US national interest and Iraq is no exception

[rmnunez]

Simba, do you really think US foreign policy should be in furtherance of human rights or peace rather than national interest? Can you offer us any example of a government pursuing a foreign policy that does not further its national interest?

[Melvyn]

Quote by: rmnunez The intervention in Iraq has produced a lot of criticism against the US; the WMDs, the oil greed argument, a crusading Bush, war on terrorism... have all been cited. Human rights concerns apparently were never a consideration, but their improvement in Iraq a happy side-effect. What do you think, should the US pull out, compensate Iraqis, restore Saddam, make an act of contrition? Or should they instead forge ahead with Iran, DPRK, Syria, Indonesia...

Was your last sentence perhaps a joke or wishful thinking. We should finish the projects we started. With a much greater effort than we have made thus far we might get something quite positive in Afghanistan though we have a long way to go. We should stabilize our position in Iraq even if it means a serious compromise with the idea of a pluralistic Iraq, friendly to the U.S. We should be ready to defend ourselves and our allies -- if we can figure out who they are --. We should take on no new projects.

Melvyn - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[rmnunez]

Neither a joke nor wishful thinking, it was meant as a question. I think they should forge ahead, it is what was suggested when Bush outlined this multi-phased global war on terrorism. I agree the Afghan and Iraqi projects are unfinished, but think the US is capable of doing more than one thing at a time and can more easily accomplish those projects while democratizing the rest of the Middle East.

[Melvyn]

Quote by: rmnunez Neither a joke nor wishful thinking, it was meant as a question. I think they should forge ahead, it is what was suggested when Bush outlined this multi-phased global war on terrorism. I agree the Afghan and Iraqi projects are unfinished, but think the US is capable of doing more than one thing at a time and can more easily accomplish those projects while democratizing the rest of the Middle East.

Your optimism is refreshing, but with all respect, I think naive. If we could do as much as you say, why have we not? Why did we not do a complete job in Afghanistan? If it is because we got busy in Iraq, then your theory is proven wrong. If it is because we chose not to, then the judgement of history will be harsh.

Now we are busy in both those places and no matter your rosy forecasts we are clearly not winning in Iraq and are doing little more than supporting the central government in Afghanistan. The warlords areagain in charge in the countryside and the nation has turned its economy over to the drug trade. Is the what we call a victory for American policy.

If we start all the projects you recommend, where will we find the troops? Where will we find the money?

Of course, I have only spoken of the practical issues. We should also think about the morality of attempting to conquer all these other nations.

Melvyn - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[rmnunez]

The US has held back in the hope of coalescing some sort of multinational effort, they want the UN and EU engaged, not only because it relieves them of some casualties, but so too because it would take some of the wind from the sails of those who think this is about territorial conquest and imperial domination.

In Afghanistan the process continues apace, they've had their elections, the government is recognized and they are coordinating a multinational effort that disarms and pacifies the warlords while delivering much needed infrastructural improvements. Much more needs to be done and should have already, but it is well underway. In Iraq the paramilitary attacks have slowed 'nationbuilding' and the Coalition has frayed, NATO is barely in on the effort, Germany and France certainly are not, several governments have scurried in fear, but there is progress. About 15% of the territory remains in insurgent or terrorist hands but with the fall of Fallujah, major exercises in Mosul and skirmishes in half a dozen enclaves, this too will soon be controlled.

Fostering unrest in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran requires no troops, its about helping dissidents, this is just money for publications, networking opportunities, some technical support.

[rmnunez]

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier called for a "new relationship" with the US but warned that a better alliance did not mean allegiance. Barnier, in an interview published in the International Herald Tribune, said he hoped to visit the US "every three to four months" to meet with administration officials, members of Congress and others. "We need more political dialogue -we need to talk more," Barnier said. Barnier said France would support the January 30 elections in Iraq, which he said needed to be "as credible as possible" and sensitive to the Sunni minority. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050110/1/3pr3n.html

I thought this was interesting, particularly this concern over Sunni sensitivities, is it just traditional French ‘underdogism’ or does it seem like the will and aspirations of the Sunni are being overlooked by the US?

[PatrickHenry]

A practical matter: the Sunni minority are the control problem the US seeks to solve.

Aspirations? IMO, the US cares little for anyone's hopes, only in its own positioning for power projection in Central Asia.

France is a big part of the EU, the counterbalance to "Oceania" in the current paradigm. I think the Foreign Minister is just doing his job, seeking dialog with the US. Could be a genuine desire to help, though...

[Melvyn]

Quote by: rmnunez I thought this was interesting, particularly this concern over Sunni sensitivities, is it just traditional French ‘underdogism’ or does it seem like the will and aspirations of the Sunni are being overlooked by the US?

The U.S. has made some gestures to the Sunnis. They don't seem to be doing any good. The Sunnis are refusing to participate in the elections. I'm thinking that like any minority in any country, the Sunnis will have accomodate themselves to majority rule. I admire the Shiites for their self-control in not attacking Sunnis, both for past injustices under Saddam as well as the current violence. But if the Sunnis don't participate in the elction, then they are going to be stuck with whatever the Shiites leave them. Their future is in their own hands and they are destroying it every day.

Melvyn

[rmnunez]

We should consider the Sunnis in context, it makes no sense to figure all of them are fundamentalist troublemakers, just some. It seems likely some of the Sunni opposition is based on desires to restore the status-quo ante, made up of Baathists and Saddamite loyalists, while other Sunnis might simply fail to accept subordination to the majority. What proportion of the population is Sunni and of these, how many are behind the insurgency? How many of the Sunni who are supportive of the insurgents would remain so if they lived in more Coalitioneer-controlled areas of Iraq?