Bloggers in Prison in Egypt

When Bush talks about democracy in the Middle East, he certainly isn't referring to his buddy Mubarak of Egypt. Egypt has been operated as a totalitarian government for most of it's modern history. Yet, do we see Bush protesting human rights abuses in Egypt? No way, if anything, Mubarak and Bush are cut from the same cloth. They both wish to supress dissent, run things his way, and eliminate pesky checks and balances. I'm sure George is envious of Mubarak's free hand.
WaPo

Just over a year ago, Alaa Seif al-Islam was one of a growing number of Egyptian bloggers who recounted their lives online, published poetry, provided Web tips, helped private aid agencies use the Internet and stayed out of politics.


But on May 25, 2005, Seif al-Islam witnessed the beating of women at a pro-democracy rally in central Cairo by supporters of the ruling National Democratic Party. He was then roughed up by police, who confiscated the laptop computer ever at his hand. After that, Seif al-Islam's blog turned to politics. It began not only to describe the troubles of Egypt under its authoritarian president, Hosni Mubarak, but also described acts of repression and became a vehicle for organizing public protests.


On May 7, Seif al-Islam took part in a downtown sit-in to show support for two judges whose jobs are threatened because they denounced electoral fraud during parliamentary elections in November. Police with sticks broke up the protest and trucked dozens of demonstrators, including Seif al-Islam, to jail, where he remains.


At least six bloggers are among about 300 protesters jailed during the past month's suppression of demonstrations. The bloggers, supporters say, were singled out by police, who pointed them out before agents rushed in to hustle them away.In the view of some human rights observers, the Egyptian government has begun to note political activity online and is taking steps to rein it in.


"Blogging was a new but growing phenomenon. The government is monitoring, and it doesn't like" what it sees, said Gamal Eid, director of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information. The legal status of the jailed bloggers and other detainees distresses their relatives and friends: Under Egypt's emergency laws, which have been in place for 25 years, the bloggers can be jailed indefinitely. A special court reviews such detentions only every 15 days. Some prisoners held under emergency laws have been jailed for more than a decade.


Among the charges lodged against Seif al-Islam is insulting Mubarak, who has been Egypt's president for a quarter-century.

Bush would need Cheney's concentration camps if he jailed everyone who has insulted him.

Anti-U.S. Rioting Erupts in Kabul

The victory in Afghanistan continues to evolve into a quagmire since Bush pulled the majority of troops to his adventure in Iraq. This continues to be a good year for bin Ladin. There will be thousands of new recruits in Afghanistan now as well as tens of thousands in Iraq.
New York Times

The speed and magnitude of the unrest was such that hundreds of police officers and soldiers struggled to contain the violence. The Afghan government and the American military authority issued statements promising full investigations of the accident. It became clear the American military and the Afghan police and army had used their weapons to try to disperse the crowds. Scores of people were treated in hospitals for gunshot wounds.
A 7-year-old boy was among the dead, and two more schoolchildren were badly wounded, said Dr. Amin, the duty doctor at Khair Khana Hospital in the northern part of Kabul, who like many Afghans uses only one name. Four people died at the hospital, he said, and 60 wounded people were given first aid before being transferred to other hospitals.


Although the sudden explosion of violence may have been a reaction to the five deaths in the crash, it is a sign that Afghans are losing patience with the government and the foreign military presence in Afghanistan, residents said.
Ali Seraj, a businessman and a descendant of the Afghan royal family, contended that the American military showed a careless attitude toward human life that was becoming a growing problem, whether it was the bombing of villages in counterinsurgency activities in southern Afghanistan or car accidents in the capital. "This type of attitude has created a great deal of mistrust and hatred," he said.


Just last week, President Karzai ordered an investigation of an American airstrike on a village near Kandahar in the south that killed at least 35 civilians. In another episode, the United States military said last month that it would investigate the killings of seven members of a family in an airstrike in Kunar Province in the east during an operation against insurgents.


On Monday, clashes began early in the morning when a truck leading an American military convoy smashed into 12 cars in rush-hour traffic as it went down a long hill from the Khair Khana pass just north of Kabul. Five civilians were killed and more injured in the multiple crash, a statement from Mr. Karzai's office said. MORE

On This Memorial Day Weekend

Grey Eagle is a 35 year old wife, mother, and U.S. Soldier with the 101st Airborne Division. She is a Combat Medic with Charlie Company (1st Brigade) deployed at FOB Warrior, Iraq. She offers compelling thoughts for this Memorial Day.

These past 8 months, the visions of the wounded and of the dead, will forever change this holiday for me. In one particular moment, as I sought to prepare a soldier’s remains, I discovered a photo of his family within his helmet. On this weekend that moment burns in my memory and etches a meaning of this time deeply into my soul. I think that anyone who visits this website during this weekend should click on the Tributes, and pick at least one soldier from the list and take the time to read about them. It is a small way not only to pay tribute to our fallen, but in that moment that you are reading about them, they are alive. See when you read about a fallen soldier, they are in your heart and for those few minutes they are alive again, within you. I think we owe them that much for their sacrifice. Take a moment and leave a comment for that soldier and for those who visit that Tribute in the future to know that on this weekend you will keep this soldier alive in your heart.


On this weekend I wish to pass on a thought to those who visit this website. In the Soldier’s Creed it states “Duty, Honor, Country”. Nowhere does it mention politics. On this special day, put your political thoughts aside. On this day remember every soldier has a family, someone who loves them and will miss them deeply. I can tell you from personal experience that there isn’t one soldier who has been deployed that did not reflect on that moment they were called to offer their lives at least once. Know that no soldier’s final thoughts were of whether we should or shouldn’t be here, but of those they will leave behind.

What's Wrong With America?

Contrary to the view point of the Christian fundamentalists, evolution never stops. Our culture has made many adjustments over the past couple thousand years that reflects evolutionary advancement. One of the most important developments is the advancing political and social power of women. Today, while it's still largely a man's world, men have to compete with women at every level of acheivement. It's particularly notable that women have begun to consistently win top high school academic honors, even sweeping national science competitions.
Although many younger women are still drawn by their primordial instincts to dominant aggressive men, women have become smarter about their choices because of the high proportion of physical and emotional abusiveness associated with aggressive men.
Men's image of themselves has also evolved. A manly man no longer is required to project an image of a chest pounding, tough man "who won't back down", and whose emotional repertoire is limited to angry, hungry, and horny. Real men do cry, they might eat quiche, change a diaper, and perhaps sit with the women in family gatherings and enjoy the family gossip. They can enjoy romantic movies and still be an NFL football fan.
The problem is that many men are uncomfortable with the changes. They feel like they have lost something in that they no longer dominate the limelight. They are afraid that they've lost something by giving up the intimidation factor. In the blog The Other Side of Kim du Toit, the author writes about his frustration and his heroes.

we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really ####### sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.


Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?


It’s a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.


Because only the strong men propagate.


And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator’s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could #### 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.

Men like this want to kick butt and think that is what should make the world go their way. What they miss is that men who run on aggression only are easily manipulated. Embarass their sense of dominance and challenge their pre-eminence, they react very predictably. This is how bin Ladin has been winning the so-called "war on terror". The aggressive response in Iraq has simply fallen into his hands. He now has a forum to breed hate at America and teach guerrilla warfare tactics under fire, the best possible circumstance.
And behind every aggressive man is the woman who loves him. Witness the confusion Dr. Helen has about Mad Suburban Dad, saying he sounds like a woman who hates men!

June is Torture Awareness Month

Shining Light In Dark Corners supports efforts to advocate for the end of torture perpetrated worldwide, but especially by the US.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and a few other NGOs, have designated June Torture Awareness Month. Elendil has created a blogroll you can join if you're interested. You can find it here. The idea is that everyone is linked to from the blogroll, and in exchange, you discuss torture (as you already do), and link to the Torture Awareness site to help support the NGOs.
Elendil says,

There's a lot of bloggers concerned about human rights abuse in the War on Terror. If we coordinate, we can show our support and help Amnesty and HRW make Torture Awareness Month a success.

The Promise of Stagflation

Remember our old buddy stagflation from the Arab Oil Imbargo in the 1970's? The dollar is headed rapidly down with the stock market, prices are headed up thanks to US energy policy and inevitably, the economy will slow as foreign investors run for the border. We can thank our illustrious commander in chief for wasting the strongest economy in decades and an unprecidented international concensus on combating terrorism into economic, military and diplomatic disaster.
PINR

As historically benign investment risk in the U.S. begins to rapidly increase during the next several months, foreign capital flight could intensify dramatically, prompting the dollar's devaluation against other major currencies. Weakening economic fundamentals, missteps by the U.S. Federal Reserve, increasing political instability and extreme global geopolitical instability are factors that could easily push investment risk in the United States to extraordinary heights sending foreign investors toward the exit.


Rising energy prices are finally beginning to push U.S. inflation indicators broadly higher. As summer begins, energy demand in the United States will increase, driving crude oil and fuel prices much higher. This will fan the inflation fire in the United States. At the same time, rising prices will begin to dampen the growth of both private consumption and investment, slowing U.S. economic growth. Although not seen in the U.S. since the early 1970s, stagflation could make a strong comeback bid in the months ahead.


The last episode of stagflation in the United States was the result of the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo, which produced a prolonged increase in international crude oil prices. The reappearance of stagflation could accelerate foreign capital flight from the United States. How the U.S. Federal Reserve responds to the unusual combination of rising inflation and slowing economic growth could further accelerate foreign capital flight. With inflation already rising and U.S. economic growth far above sustainable levels in the first quarter of this year, one can easily argue that the Fed has been too timid in tightening monetary policy during the past several months.


This timidity can be blamed on two factors: the change in the chairmanship at the Fed and the approach of U.S. mid-term elections. The Fed's new chairman, Ben Bernanke, was appointed by President George W. Bush. Bernanke has undoubtedly come under some amount of political pressure to delay further tightening of monetary policy until after the November 7 elections in order to avoid a U.S. economic slowdown. The Fed's failure to act decisively in the face of rising inflation could damage the credibility of the U.S. monetary system, turning capital flight into a flood.


The flood of foreign capital from the United States could be further attenuated by political instability. Public opinion polls indicate that popular support for President Bush has fallen to about 30 percent. Popular support for Vice President Dick Cheney is below 25 percent. The exceedingly weak popular support for the president and vice president raises questions about the legitimacy of the entire Bush administration. This erosion of legitimacy has encouraged public rebuke of several administration officials including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.


[...]Yet another factor that could produce a torrent of foreign capital flight from the United States is extreme global geopolitical instability. Historically, geopolitical instability has usually prompted a flight to the safe haven of the U.S. dollar. Geopolitical instability, however, has rarely been of such global proportion and so elevated. The Bush administration is simultaneously applying pressure on two very strong adversaries, Iran and North Korea. Military action against either of these countries will have profound long-term negative global economic and geopolitical consequences. Even the threat of military action or the imposition of economic sanctions against Iran or North Korea would have similar negative consequences. MORE

Black Only Programs Discriminatory?

WaPo has a rather interesting guest editorial by a NAACP leader decrying the discrimination of the black male only programs in higher education. While I do think these programs represent misplaced priorities, to decry them as discriminatory seems more political posturing than real.

I'm sorry to report that 52 years after Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal is all the rage in certain parts of the education world -- especially on college campuses where special programs are offered that target minority students for "special" and separate attention, counseling, mentoring, tutoring, residences and instruction.


The latest of these race fads are the Black Male Initiatives (BMIs), government-funded and university-sponsored, and underway on campuses in states including Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. The initiatives focus on recruiting, schooling and "saving" black men.

The problem really lies in a sub-culture where black males who are serious about school are told they are "too white" and a "cool pose" image of a wheeling-dealing (often in drugs) single promiscuous black man who doesn't have a clue how to behave in an all too white workplace.
Further isolating black men in high profile programs long after the problem manifests may be too much too late. However, there is nothing wrong with offering specialized help for adult special students, who constitute a significant population in urban community colleges, where the black men can "disappear" into a fully integrated program.
Significant resources need to be directed to the black community to support young parents and their children. Just how that might manifest is still, unfortunately an open question.

Abbas Has A Plan

Perhaps I'm missing something. Jamal at Opinionated Voice comments that Abbas' proposal for referendum to give implicit recognition to Israel is accepting apartheid.
Compared to his peers, Abbas is a statesman. He seems to have a sense of history and a good understanding of the dynamics of politics. The proposal seems to have all the ingredients of a short range plan that just might work. Abbas’s called for a referendum on negotiating with Israel if no deal is reached on a political program within 10 days. The ultimatum given appears intended to push Hamas to moderate it's stand, or save face and not do so. Then a referendum could authorize recognition of Israel, accepting a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza and approving the 18 point plan.

The document, negotiated by senior members of the leading Palestinian factions currently being held in prison by Israel, has 18 main proposals.


1 The establishment of a Palestinian state and the return of refugees to their homes.
2 Incorporating Hamas and Islamic Jihad into the Palestine Liberation Organisation [PLO].
3 To resist Israeli occupation of lands captured in 1967 [the West Bank and Gaza].
4 The formulation of a political plan including Arab summit resolutions, the PLO platform and fair international proposals.
5 To consolidate the Palestinian Authority as the core of the state.
6 The setting up of a national unity government for all factions, especially Fatah and Hamas.
7 The PLO and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, would be in charge of peace negotiations.
8 Freedom for all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.
9 Aid for refugees.
10 To set up a united movement for resistance against Israeli occupation with political backing.
11 Maintain democratic elections and politics.
12 The condemnation of the Israeli and US siege on the Palestinian people.
13 To promote national unity by backing the Palestinian Authority, president, PLO and government.
14 Ban on use of weapons in internal conflicts and renouncing divisions and [internal] violence.
15 To improve the participation of the people of Gaza in freedom and independence.
16 To reform and develop the security forces.
17 The passing of laws reorganising the security forces and banning security officers from political activity.
18 To boost efforts of international solidarity groups in struggles against Israeli occupation, settlements and security barrier.

This looks like a very shrewd gambit. Abbas must be a pretty good chess player. He pushes Hamas to join the mainstream and recognize Israel, but still gives them an out should they decide they can't. I think they would have already done so if they could have. To allay concerns about giving away land, he adds a condition he knows Israel will never accept, withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders. But if he can bring Hamas into the PLO, or into the process in some other way, negotiating based on the Abu Mazen Plan from 1995, the plan that looked very much like Sharon's Wall.
Abbas sees a future of PLO as a united Palestinian organization, one that would wield the kind of political clout it never has or can have without essentially renouncing terrorism. The 18 point plan calls for centralized "resistance", clearly a move to redirect energies politically. Hamas and Islamic Jihad then would be "welcomed" into the PLO, the Palestinian Authority would presumably incorporate both Fatah and Hamas members. Hamas could focus it's efforts on cleaning up the corruption within PLO and the PA. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and perhaps even Iran could be persuaded to join this coalition. Perhaps even Syria might see this as way to begin to shed it's pariah status. Such a coalition would have the clout to force the US to the table to pressure Israel to negotiate in good faith.
Before Rabin was assasinated, peace seemed so close. I so much want to see this happen. I've thought from the beginning that Abbas is the kind of man who had the skills to do this. He lacked the political support to clean house in the PLO, so he has lost support and credibility playing the power broker, rather than the leader. Perhaps he can become the leader now. I pray.

WCC: Israel To Blame for Palestinian Plight

I couldn't agree more with blaming Israel for the stalemate in peace talks. It's practice of collective punishment, building settlements on land stolen from the Palestinian people, assasinating leaders with "collateral damage" of hundreds of innocent men, women and children is reprehensible behavior and to be condemned. The US political structure's support from both sides of the aisle makes them culpable for this disaster. Hamas' election is a statement about how inappropriate those policies have been. Their response? Put their head in the sand and cut off all aid until a hue and cry goes up about crumbling medical care. As Opinionated Voice puts it, “...the Palestine crisis is now more dramatic even than apartheid, but it is the victims who are punished."
On the other hand, Hamas' unwavering position simply creates no incentive for Israel or US to mend it's ways.
Jerusalem Post

Israel bears the burden of responsibility for the present crisis in the Middle East, the World Council of Churches has announced, following a meeting of its Executive Committee in Geneva from May 16-19. The Christian Left's leading ecumenical organization stated Israel's actions towards the Palestinians "cannot be justified morally, legally or even politically." The failure "to comply with international law" had "pushed the situation on the ground to a point of no return," they concluded.


The WCC condemned the killing of innocent civilians by "both sides" in the conflict and called for the Palestinians to "maintain the existing one-party cease-fire toward Israel" and asked Israel to base its security on "the equitable negotiation of final borders" with its neighbors. However, the present disparities between Israel and Palestine were "appalling," the WCC said. "One side is positioning itself to unilaterally establish final borders on territory that belongs to the other side; the other side is increasingly confined to the scattered enclaves that remain. On one side there is control of more and more land and water; on the other there are more and more families deprived of land and livelihoods.

Chief Justice Roberts A Minimalist

Perhaps Roberts can avoid being a revolutionary in the Supreme Court. His philosophy certainly minimized the chance of overturning major interpretations by focusing on the most narrow legal questions. On the other hand we might see a flurry of legal cases attempting to force a change or affirmation of, for example, Roe v. Wade.
Los Angeles Times

Last week, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered his first commencement address, at Georgetown University Law Center, he offered an original, substantive and unambiguous defense of narrow, minimalist rulings.


Roberts began by arguing in favor of unanimous or near-unanimous opinions, which, he said, serve the rule of law by ensuring that the court's message is not confused by its own internal divisions. He went on to suggest that such a consensus on the part of the justices would, almost by necessity, lead to narrow rulings, limited in most situations to the particular issue at hand.


"The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is that the decision is on the narrowest possible ground," he said. After all, the nine justices have highly diverse views, and if they are able to join a single opinion, that opinion is likely to be narrow.


This, in the chief justice's view, is entirely desirable. "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more," he said.


Roberts made several approving references to Justice Felix Frankfurter, one of American history's great minimalist judges who consistently called for narrow rulings, especially on the issues that divide the nation most sharply. Writing more than 50 years ago, Frankfurter said that the court has an obligation "to avoid putting fetters upon the future by needless pronouncements today."


It was advice Frankfurter followed himself. In his opinion voting to strike down President Truman's 1952 seizure of the nation's steel mills, Frankfurter refused to say much about presidential power in general. He emphasized that "rigorous adherence to the narrow scope of the judicial function" is especially important when national security is at risk, notwithstanding the national "eagerness to settle — preferably forever — a specific problem on the basis of the broadest possible constitutional pronouncement."


Roberts referred, with unmistakable enthusiasm, to Frankfurter's suggestion that courts should focus on the concrete issue and "not embarrass the future too much."


What makes Roberts' argument noteworthy is that it takes a side in one of the deepest and most long-standing divisions in American jurisprudence — a division that cuts across the standard ideological lines.


One strand of that jurisprudence, associated with justices Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black, prizes broad, ambitious rulings on the ground that they give the clearest signals to lower courts, potential litigants and the nation as a whole. Scalia has long attacked minimalism on the ground that a court that resolves "one case at a time" leaves far too much doubt. If the court focuses on particular facts, people won't know, for example, when affirmative-action programs are permissible, when government can interfere with private choices and what, exactly, the president may or may not do to protect the nation.


The competing strand, associated with Frankfurter and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, prizes narrow rulings. O'Connor emphasized the need for humility, which would require the justices to acknowledge what they do not know and to leave many questions undecided.

Unilateral "Peace" in Israel?

Israel's plan to unilaterally impose borders if there is no agreement appears to be the only option available given the position of Hamas still tacitly committed to retaking all of old Palestine. And there continued support of suicide bombings seems to rule out any direct negotiation. Abbas' position is weak, being basically little more than a middle man. This sure makes Arafat's intransigence loom larger than ever. Did he kill off a viable Palestinian state?
I have to say that Bush's reference to a mutual final agreement left the door open, but his help after basically giving Israel a green light for the past six years is too little too late.
WaPo

President Bush yesterday embraced Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's strategy of withdrawing from isolated Jewish settlements on the West Bank and unilaterally imposing final borders over Palestinian objections if he cannot negotiate a peace plan with their leaders.


Welcoming Olmert to the White House for the first time since his election eight weeks ago, Bush reserved judgment on the specifics of any "realignment" plan but called the concepts "bold ideas" and expressed satisfaction that the new Israeli leader would first make a serious attempt to craft an agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.


"While any final-status agreement will be only achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes and no party should prejudice the outcome of negotiations on a final-status agreement, the prime minister's ideas could be an important step toward the peace we both support," Bush said with Olmert at his side in the East Room.

Hypocracy At the Highest Levels

Just what is it about Washington DC that creates the atmosphere of being above the law?
The FBI raided Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.) office this past weekend apparently following up on a videotape showing Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then finding $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.
But Congressional leaders of both parties are universally condemning the raid of Legislative offices because it's never been done, and "separation of power". It's never been done. The Patriot Act authorizes authorities to raid any citizen's home and office for National Security purposes, but they question a raid based on what appears to be solid evidence of wrong doing?
WaPo

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker. The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.


Republican leaders, who previously sought to focus attention on the Jefferson case as a counterpoint to their party's own ethical scandals, said they are disturbed by the raid. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he is "very concerned" about the incident and that Senate and House counsels will review it.


House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.


"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

U.S. Is Proposing European Shield for Iran Missiles

Now why would the US propose a "European Shield" if Iran is years away from capability for medium and long-range missiles? Like everything else, real national security concerns are not the primary driver of Bush Administration policy. The primary driver is business and secondarily it's about political agenda. "Star Wars" contractors must be winding down development and initial phases of implementation and need more business. Secondly, Bush wants the Europeans to get good and scared about what Iran might do so any adventures the US initiates will get support.
New York Times

To improve the coverage against a potential Iranian threat, the Pentagon is upgrading a radar complex at Fylingdales, a British air base, and plans to begin similar work at the American Thule Air Base in Greenland. By building an antimissile base in Europe, the Pentagon is seeking to position the interceptors close to the projected flight path of Iranian missiles that would be aimed toward Europe or continue on a polar route to the United States.
General Obering said the system would complement any NATO efforts to develop an antimissile defense.
Iran does not have intercontinental-range missiles and has yet to conduct a flight test of a multistage rocket. There has been concern that Iran might develop the technology it needs to build such a weapon in the guise of a civilian space program. But some experts say it is a long way from developing such a system.


"As far as we can tell, Iran is many years away from having the capability to deliver a military strike against the U.S.," said Gary Samore, vice president of the MacArthur Foundation and a former aide at the National Security Council. "If they made a political decision to seriously pursue a space launch vehicle it would take them a decade or more to develop the capability to launch against the U.S." MORE

Racism Shows It's Ugliness

Have doubts that racism is alive and well in the blogosphere? Check out Unclaimed Territory by Glenn Greenwald. Ray Nagin's re-election as Mayor of New Orleans is being framed in racist terms by conservative bloggers.

The people commenting on this municipal election have no idea why Nagin was re-elected. There are all sorts of reasons why that might have happened. Perhaps the voters thought he was not to blame for what happened with Katrina. Perhaps they thought he was heroic in how he stood up to the Federal Government and pinned the blame where it belonged. Perhaps they thought he did the best he could and was satisfied with his governance in other areas. Perhaps they had no faith in his opponent that he could do better. Those who are claiming that he was re-elected by a bunch of stupid black voters strictly on racial grounds have no idea whether that's true and they don't care either.


All they know is that they excitedly see an opportunity where they think this sort of spiteful racial commentary -- which is normally beyond the bounds of what is acceptable -- is permissible here, and they can't pass up the chance to spew playground epithets about Ray Nagin's race and about the intellectual level of the voters who re-elected him. These ugly sentiments are never far from the surface in many people and it doesn't take much for it to come spewing forth.

Taliban Resurgent in Afghanistan

Rather than consolidating control over Afghanistan, the Bush Administration detoured to "daddy's war" in Iraq and didn't finish the job. bin Ladin is still free and the Tabilan grow again in strength with more daring tactics copied from the success in Iraq. Meanwhile, the rest of the Middle East continues to destabilize.
The invasion of Iraq has stalled the war with Al Qaeda for decades.
WaPo

Afghanistan has been rocked over the past two days by some of the deadliest violence since the Taliban was driven from power in late 2001. As many as 105 people were reported killed in four provinces as insurgents torched a district government compound, set off suicide bombs and clashed fiercely with Afghan and foreign troops.


Between 80 and 90 Taliban fighters were killed in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, according to Afghan, U.S. and NATO officials. Two sites in Kandahar were struck by U.S. warplanes, including a long-range B-1 bomber, which U.S. military officials said destroyed a compound that Taliban guerrillas were using to stage an attack.


Among the dead were an American police trainer killed by a car bomb in Herat province, a female Canadian army captain and at least 12 Afghan national policemen, officials said.


Afghanistan experienced several years of relative calm after a pro-Western government took over in Kabul in 2001. But in recent months, the pace and scope of insurgent attacks have been increasing steadily, and now include suicide bombings, a tactic long foreign to Afghanistan. The violence has surged as NATO forces prepare to assume the lead military role in Afghanistan from U.S. troops this summer, a transition that some observers believe the Taliban and other insurgent groups are seeking to test.


President Hamid Karzai, visiting the capital of eastern Konar province under heavy security, angrily denounced the new violence as the work of religious extremists and intelligence services in neighboring Pakistan, saying they had sent young men across the border to stage attacks in the name of holy war. "In Pakistan they train people to go to Afghanistan, conduct jihad, burn schools and clinics," he told a gathering of provincial elders in a long, emotional speech. "What kind of Islam is this?" Karzai did not blame Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, calling him a "dear brother" and saying that "terrorism is a fire that will extend to your country, too." But he directly taunted Mohammad Omar, the fugitive Afghan Taliban leader, challenging him to "show yourself" and "come fight with me" instead of hiding.

Learning the Lesson of Libya

What Bush claimed as a winning game of intimidation in Libya, was in fact, hard nosed negotiation sculpted by the British. The West offered assurances of no attempts to run Muammar Kaddafi out of the country, and he offered to support the war on terror and give up any intentions to go to WMDs. This is what Iran and North Korea have been asking for all along.
The Bush Administration can't learn from experience, they already have all the answers. It's better to look tough, even if that allows rogue regimes with nuclear bombs.
Hirsh: Newsweek

No, the real model that the Bush administration ought to be paying attention to is the British one for dealing with international rogues like Kaddafi. Rule one of this model is: if you can't destroy regimes—and we can't, not anymore, not after Iraq—then you try to turn them. You flip them. You hold your nose and negotiate, preferably from a position of strength. You have no other choice, unless you want to attack. And we really don't want to attack: even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, faced with a rebellion from inside his own Pentagon, has been publicly skeptical about the military options in recent days. Yet the Bush administration has still not learned the lesson of its greatest diplomatic success.


[...]This uncompromising stance is still, in effect, the president's policy toward both North Korean and Iran. In both cases the administration is pretending to negotiate through proxies—through the Europeans in the case of Iran; through the Chinese in the case of North Korea—while in practice Washington is essentially issuing ultimatums as an opening bargaining position. Bush is maintaining his insistence that these regimes give up the store—agree to surrender their WMD programs—before Washington will even come to the table. In other words, the president continues to follow the old John Bolton line.


[...]No one is suggesting there will ever be an easy way out of the Iran and North Korea problems. But there is ample evidence that, for several years, both Iran and North Korea have been seeking assurances similar to what Kaddafi got before they will negotiate. Flynt Leverett, who served on Bush's National Security Council in the first term, revealed last week that the president has squandered previous openings with Tehran.

Even a snake in the grass like Kaddafi can negotiate. I suspect he may have already figured he was next on the list because he was caught red handed attempting to destabilize Saudi Arabia.
Newsweek

the Saudis concluded that in the summer of 2003 Kaddafi ordered Musa Kusa, the director of Libyan intelligence, and others “to work to destabilize Saudi Arabia and to effect the assassination of Saudi leaders, Crown Prince Abdullah being the primary target.”

The Militarization of Turkey and Coming Invasion of Independent Kurdistan

The break-up of Iraq, seemingly inevitable now, only begins a new chapter in Middle East warfare. One of the flash points is northern Iraqi Kurdistan and southeastern Turkey. Turkey has made it clear, it will not tolerate an independent Kurdistan. The Kurds have made it clear, they will accept nothing less than autonomy and possession of Kirkuk, one of the major oil sources in Iraq. The Shia have made it clear that they will not let the Kurds take Kirkuk.
The consequences to Iraq is many years of civil war. The consequences to Turkey may be an end to hopes for EU membership, oppression in Turkey Kurdistan an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan and another military coop in Turkey.
PINR

In the past six months, the Turkish military has amassed nearly 250,000 troops in southeastern Turkey and along the border between Turkey and Iraq. This buildup has two aims: thwarting Turkey's own Kurdish separatists operating in the region and protecting the interests of the Turkoman population in Iraqi Kurdistan. The birth of an independent Kurdistan could agitate Turkey's Kurdish population, which has suffered decades of repression at the hands of the Turkish military. It could also undermine the rights of the Turkoman living in Kurdistan.


The militarization of southeastern Turkey in response to Iraq's fracturing and moves toward Kurdish independence has already prompted new repression designed to foil any separatist designs by Turkey's Kurds. This repression, combined with probable Turkish military action against the new Kurdistan, will probably end Turkey's hopes of eventual E.U. accession. Without E.U. accession as an anchor, the Erdogan government will quickly lose its legitimacy.


In August 2006, General Ozkok will retire in favor of Turkish Ground Forces Commander General Yasar Buyukanit. General Buyukanit appears to have much more hawkish views toward the birth of an independent Kurdistan and Turkey's Kurds than General Ozkok. Buyukanit raised many eyebrows at home and abroad after stating that he would personally lead the Turkish military into northern Iraq should Iraqi Kurds establish an independent state.


In order to launch a military action against Iraq's Kurds and to contain the threat of secessionist activity by Turkish Kurds, the Turkish military has already begun to militarize southeastern Turkey. With Europeans focusing heavily on Turkey's ability to improve its human rights record, military action against Kurds in Iraq, military action against an independent Kurdistan and renewed oppression of Turkey's own Kurds will bring Istanbul's E.U. accession process to a screeching halt.


The collapse of Turkey's E.U. accession bid can be expected to raise significantly the political heat on the Erdogan government from Turkey's secular establishment. This heat will be amplified as the May 2007 presidential succession approaches. Turkey current president Ahmet Necdet Sezer has acted as a secular bulwark against the Erdogan government, using his power to veto A.K.P.-sponsored legislation and to reject many government appointments made by Erdogan.


Since Turkey's president is appointed by the country's parliament, the political party controlling parliament will decide who replaces Sezer. Barring early elections, this party will be the A.K.P. Turkey's secular establishment is unlikely to accept an A.K.P.-appointed Islamist as the country's next president. The Turkish military may find it quite convenient to intervene politically to prevent this. Intervention could provoke the collapse of the Erdogan government by late 2006 or early 2007.

Sectarianism Governs Iraq

The greater middle east continues to destabilize led by the impending break up of Iraq. The turmoil in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and resurging insurgency in Afghanistan is directly related to the US invasion in Iraq. The regional conflict that follows will make the US invasion look like a side show.
PINR

Far from providing the long-awaited impetus for political and social stability, the results of Iraq's December 2005 parliamentary election were another step toward the division of the country along sectarian lines. Secular candidates supported by the Bush administration were trounced in the election, while the broad victory of the Iran-backed Shi'a political parties undermined Washington's influence in Iraq.


Thus far, it has been impossible for either Ibrahim al-Jaafari or his successor as prime minister, Nouri Maliki, to form a government. At the heart of Iraq's political impasse is the country's new U.S.-drafted constitution, which incomprehensibly calls for the division of political powers along sectarian lines.


The constitutionally-mandated division of political power in Iraq was meant to ensure that Shi'a, Kurds and Sunnis would participate equally in a government of "national unity." In practice, however, it has proved impossible for these disparate ethnic groups to reach a consensus for sharing cabinet positions.


Bush administration officials blame the escalation of sectarian violence in Iraq on the inability of the country's political parties to form a government. More likely, it is the other way around. Iraq's descent into civil war, which began with the February 2006 bombing of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, has made it impossible for Shi'a and Sunni political parties to work together. Meanwhile, sectarian violence has raged out of control. At least 3,000 Iraqis have died in sectarian-related violence since February 2006.


Although Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is expected to soon fill his cabinet positions, Iraq's escalating civil war will continue to obstruct governance making it impossible for the country's new government to function. This, combined with the planned withdrawal in 2006 by most of Washington's coalition partners from Iraq, will pressure the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops. A U.S. troop drawdown may be accelerated by electoral politics as the U.S. mid-term elections approach. The withdrawal of U.S.-led forces will fuel Iraq's civil war, speeding the country's fracture along sectarian lines.


Like Iraq's government, Washington played a strong role in the creation of the country's military, police and paramilitary organizations. As a result, these security organizations are also steeped in sectarianism, hence their role in enflaming Iraq's civil war. As foreign forces are withdrawn, Iraq's security organizations will devolve back into the Shi'a and Kurdish militias from which they were derived. These militias will be used to protect Shi'a and Kurdish territories, respectively. Compared to the Shi'a, the Kurdish militia, or peshmerga, is much better organized and more well-armed thanks to many years of U.S. support.


More than 90 percent of the Iraqi National Army troops stationed in northern Iraq, or Iraqi Kurdistan, hail from the Kurdish peshmerga. Rather than allegiance to a central military authority, these troops are loyal to peshmerga leaders. The Kurds have also maintained their peshmerga militia in northern Iraq. Combining these troops gives the Kurds a formidable army with which to defend its territory. Inevitably, Iraqi Kurds, who just anointed their own prime minister and parliament creating the Kurdistan Regional Government, will likely declare their independence from Iraq.

Support for Our Vets Ends at the Iraqi Border

While this Administration is willing to sacrifice thousands of our sons and daughters in Iraq to a lost war, the support for our troops ends at the Iraqi border. Veteran's services have suffered severe cuts so that even the disabled war veterans can't get the health care they need to adjust back into the civilian world.
There is lots of talk about morals these days, just too few actions befitting a moral society.
Philadelphia Daily News

In early 2005, because of budget constraints, Department of Veterans Affairs facilities began to cut back on services to veterans, had to postpone construction and repairs on facilities, kill orders for desperately needed medical equipment and keep staff positions unfilled - just to stay afloat. These cuts affect our returning heroes, they wait longer to be seen or receive services, pay more for their prescriptions and now have to pay fees to enroll in the VA system.


Consider the case of one Iraq war vet, Robert Acosta, who lost part of his arm and had his leg shattered in an explosion when a terrorist tossed a grenade into his truck. The prosthetic he got proved faulty. When he visited the VA for a new one, he was told there would be a long wait. He ended up having to use duct tape to hold his prosthetic arm together because of the delays.
Injuries are not always physical, though. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that one in three troops returning from Iraq will seek counseling within a year, though most believe the number may actually be higher.


Already, those with serious mental-health needs are being turned away because of underfunding. The result will prove to be the same as it was with the Vietnam veterans - many will be unable to cope with the transition back to civilian life and become drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless, or worse - suicidal.


(Jon Soltz is [an Iraq War Veteran and] executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee.)

US is Destabilizing the Government of Somalia

Having no faith in the seated government in Somalia, the US is backing Secular Warlords against Islamic fundamentalists battling for control of the capital. In supporting the warlords as opposed to the government of Somalia, they are undermining it's political credibility, and ensuring that the country will remain destabilized indefinitely and a haven for Al Qaeda. The Bush Administration doesn't seem to be able to see beyond the end of it's nose for consequences of it's actions.
WaPo

More than a decade after U.S. troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, officials of Somalia's interim government and some U.S. analysts of Africa policy say the United States has returned to the African country, secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.


The latest clashes, last week and over the weekend, were some of the most violent in Mogadishu since the end of the American intervention in 1994, and left 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. Leaders of the interim government blamed U.S. support of the militias for provoking the clashes.


U.S. officials have declined to directly address on the record the question of backing Somali warlords, who have styled themselves as a counterterrorism coalition in an open bid for American support. Speaking to reporters recently, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would "work with responsible individuals . . . in fighting terror. It's a real concern of ours -- terror taking root in the Horn of Africa. We don't want to see another safe haven for terrorists created. Our interest is purely in seeing Somalia achieve a better day."


U.S. officials have long feared that Somalia, which has had no effective government since 1991, is a desirable place for al-Qaeda members to hide and plan attacks. The country is strategically located on the Horn of Africa, which is only a boat ride away from Yemen and a longtime gateway to Africa from the Middle East. No visas are needed to enter Somalia, there is no police force and no effective central authority.


Leaders of the transitional government said they have warned U.S. officials that working with the warlords is shortsighted and dangerous.


"We would prefer that the U.S. work with the transitional government and not with criminals," the prime minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, said in an interview. "This is a dangerous game. Somalia is not a stable place and we want the U.S. in Somalia. But in a more constructive way. Clearly we have a common objective to stabilize Somalia, but the U.S. is using the wrong channels."


[...]The issue of U.S. backing came to the forefront this winter when warlords formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism after a fundamentalist Islamic group began asserting itself in the capital, setting up courts of Islamic law and building schools and hospitals.


Soon after, the coalition of warlords were well-equipped with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and antiaircraft guns, which were used in heavy fighting in the capital last week. It was the second round of fighting this year, following clashes in March that killed more than 90 people, mostly civilians, and emptied neighborhoods around the capital.


In a report to the U.N. Security Council this month, the world body's monitoring group on Somalia said it was investigating an unnamed country's secret support for an anti-terrorism alliance in apparent violation of a U.N. arms embargo.

What To Do About Iran?

Dissident Republicans are finally getting some balls with Dubya's polls at a 25 year record low. Christian fanatics pining for the rapture are still hoping to spark a new World War against Muslims in hopes that God will rescue them before disaster strikes. At least previous Christian fanatics wanting a quick trip to heaven committed holy suicide. No, these wackos want nuclear armageddon unleashed and truly believe Jesus with a sword of vengeance will rescue them directly to heaven.
Fortunately, not all Republicans think this way. So what are reasonable Republicans saying about the stand off with Iran? Gregory Djerejian has a soundly thought out opinion expressed with unusually sharp language about the current Administration. It seems that not all Republicans believe the propaganda about Al Qaeda and Iran coming from the White House.
The Belgravia Dispatch

And then, there's the reality that, even if we hit the jackpot, and decimate every last nuclear installation in Iran (highly unlikely) you can bet your bottom dollar the vast majority of the Iranian public will be united in demanding their government (whether a Khatami or Ahmadi-Nejad type) do its damn utmost to reconstitute the program--full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes (or Tomahawks)! It will become the issue determining Iranian pride and national dignity in the post-bombing era. Are we going to bomb perennially, every two years or so, for decades?


There are also the possible Iranian responses. Anthony Cordesman spelled a few of them out recently, and they include (his language, with slight B.D tweaks): 1) Iranian retaliation against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan using Shahab-3 missiles armed with CBR warheads; 2) using proxy groups including al-Zarqawi and Sadr in Iraq to intensify the insurgency and escalate the attacks against US forces and Iraqi Security Forces; 3) turning the Shi’ite majority in Iraq against the US presence and demand US forces to leave; 4) attacking the US homeland with suicide bombs by proxy groups or deliver CBR weapons to al-Qa’ida to use against the US; 5) using its asymmetric capabilities to attacks US interests in the region including soft targets: e.g. embassies, commercial centers, and American citizens; 6) attacking US naval forces stationed in the Gulf with anti-ship missiles, asymmetric warfare, and mines; 7) attacking Israel with missile attacks possibly with CBR warheads; 8) retaliating against energy targets in the Gulf and temporarily shut off the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz; and 9) stopping all of its oil and gas shipments to increase the price of oil, inflict damage on the global and US economies.


Yes, we can game plan for some of these contingencies and take preventative action. But, lest we forget, we have a gross incompetent at the helm of the Defense Department, so chances are he'll make a mockery of a good deal of the war-planning.I don't say that cheaply for kicks. I say it because, you know, it's pretty much true. Frankly, as Tom Friedman recently queried, what's worse? An Iran with nukes, or Inglorious Ruin Rummy's Great Persian Campaign? A close call, eh? Smart money is with the latter, I'd think, given the colossal blunders Rummy has presided over in Mesopotamia, plain to all observers save, oh I don't know, Larry di Rita, Hindrocket, Charles 'Pali Towelheads Smell But Are Fed Well' Johnson and, lest we forget, The Decider himself (even Fred Barnes has gotten on the clue train, at this stage).


So, what to do, you ask? Before we turn to going-forward prescriptions, we should also dispense with the Michael Ledeen school that believes revolution is nigh in the streets of Iran. To quote from an excellent (and still relevant) 2004 CFR Report:

Despite...widespread alienation from the prevailing political order, Iran does not appear to be in a prerevolutionary situation. Iranians are protesting the political system by withholding their participation from any form of organized politics, including involvement with the opposition. People are frustrated with the Islamic Republic, but they have also demonstrated that they are not prepared to take that frustration to the streets. This disengagement from politics is a direct product of Iran's recent history. Having endured the disappointment of their last democratic experiment gone awry, Iranians are weary of political turmoil and skeptical that they can positively change their political circumstances through mass mobilization.

And, unfortunately, the same report goes on to report: "no organization or potential leader has emerged with the apparent discipline or stamina to sustain a major confrontation with the government's conservative forces." Yes, yes, I know. If we can only let Elizabeth Cheney turn on the $$ taps (with the predictable gang in DC doubtless getting palsy-walsy with the next Persian Ahmad!), pump USD 70MM in the polity, we might even drop a cutesy Los Angeleno into the Azeri parts of the country and establish a safe-haven or something. But you know what? I saw that movie, it played next door in fact, and I'm not gonna watch it again. Repeat after me: no effing way! No sale you discredited dreamers, out ready so soon for another delusional jolly. Basta!


Look, the AEI gaggles think this is Warsaw, 1980, Solidarity all over again. It ain't. As the above quoted report points out:

Flawed assumptions about Iran's murky internal situation have weakened the effectiveness of U.S. policy toward the country in recent years. Persuaded that revolutionary change was imminent in Iran, the administration sought to influence Iran's internal order, relying on the model of the East European transition from communism. However, the neat totalitarian dichotomy between the regime and the people does not exist in the Islamic Republic, and, as a result, frequent, vocal appeals to the "Iranian people" only strengthened the cause of clerical reactionaries and left regime opponents vulnerable to charges of being Washington's "fifth column".

[...]There is a need to start talking, but within the framework of the ongoing multilateral process (on the nuclear issue), and a new bilateral channel (on Iraq, Afghanistan, Hezbollah, the Middle East Peace Process, al-Qaeda). Aside from the stick of real sanctions that the Euros will have signed onto in return for us opening up a bilateral channel, we should proffer commercial carrots such as permitting discussions re: executory contracts that would allow U.S. businesses to negotiate with Iranian counterparts--but importantly with a delay in the actual execution of the contracts if overall bilateral and multilateral talks didn't progress far enough. As the CFR report states: "...the return of U.S. businesses to Tehran could help undermine the clerics' monopoly on power by strengthening the non-state sector, improving the plight of Iran's beleaguered middle class, and offering new opportunities to transmit American values."

So what is the solution? Talk, that's right. Can you believe it? There are Republicans who don't reach for a gun whenever there is a disagreement! Can you believe Kissinger is among them?
WaPo

If America is prepared to negotiate with North Korea over proliferation in the six-party forum, and with Iran in Baghdad over Iraqi security, it must be possible to devise a multilateral venue for nuclear talks with Tehran that would permit the United States to participate -- especially in light of what is at stake.

You Need Not Worry

the Daily Irrelevant