Hizbullah is Winning

Hizbullah is winning, not militarily, but politically. It is seen worldwide as a hero among those sympathetic to the Palestinian's plight and seeing Israel as a bully killing innocent women and children. What has been thought of as the single most effective military force in the world has been effectively repelled by a militia of a few thousand. No, not repelled militarily, but by seeking to limit casualties, they are making little progress at stopping the missiles, in fact the missiles are coming more frequently than ever. Iran and Syria's stature as the leader of the resistance to Israel rises with Hizbullah. Hamas's fortunes have been similar and it's stature has reached heroic proportions.
Apparently, Dubya has been one of the admirers of the Israeli military. That's why he was such a pushover for the neo-cons. So when Israel claims it's right to defend itself, Dubya is the head-cheerleader. The point Israelis and their supporters keep missing is that the agenda of "defending itself" is not about strategy, it's about re-elections. The voters in Israel scream en mass, "It has to stop, do something!" And Israel does. Empowered by a population fearful of annihilation, the hawks have been in power for many years. Anyone in Israel who dares to say they might be losing the war on terror, is committing political suicide.
But the reality is that terrorism is not about winning militarily, it's about winning the hearts and minds of the populous. Israel may well win this battle, but they are condemning themselves to perpetual warfare, by creating a new generation of terrorists every time a Palestinian or in this case, Lebanese Shia neighborhood is bombed and innocent families die.
The lesson of Vietnam was not just about waging a war that was not popular, not just about wage a war directed by politicians seeking to minimize political damage, it's about fighting a mechanized war against a people who are armed and living with and fighting for their families. You can't win a guerrilla war without the support of the population living where the guerrilla fighters live and eat. Unless you intend to commit genocide.
Hamas and Hizbullah should not be confused with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is an organization with worldwide ambitions, and only the benefit of themselves at risk. The rank and file of Hamas and Hizbullah defend their homes and families, regardless of who funds their weapons.
Newsweek

[...]The bottom line: Hizbullah is winning. That’s the hideous truth about the direction this war is taking, not in spite of the way the Israelis have waged their counterattack, but precisely because of it.


We’re talking about a militia—a small guerrilla army of a few thousand fighters, in fact—that plays all the dirty games that guerrillas always play. It blends in with the local population. It draws fire against innocents. But it’s also fighting like hell against an Israeli military machine that is supposed to be world class. And despite the onslaught of the much-vaunted Tsahal, Hizbullah continues to pepper Israel itself with hundreds of rockets a day.


Neither U.S. nor Israeli policymakers have taken this dynamic into account. If they had, they’d understand that with each passing day, no matter how many casualties it takes, Hizbullah’s political power grows.


As in Iraq three years ago, the administration has been blinded to the political realities by shock-and-awe military firepower. Clinging to its faith in precision-guided munitions and cluster bombs, it has decided to let Lebanon bleed, as if that’s the way to build the future for peace and democracy.

Deconstructing Lebanon

For many years, Israel has made deterance of aggression their policy by using controversial actions that may violate international law. Although they deny it, Israel has used collective punishment for many years against Palestinians. They've also used retaliation by overwhelmingly disproportionate response regularly, quite effectively with their neighbors who have retreated to a uneasy peace.
Now Israel is typically responding disproportionately to kidnapping of it's soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these reprehensible terrorist organizations strengthen their power by bring on suffering of their people. Then they can say to their followers, "See how the Israelis behave? Only we can lead you to respond to the aggressor." This tactic has been around for eons. No one in the line of fire dare believe that their leaders brought death and destruction upon them, because doing so would leave them totally alone and helpless.
Both Hamas and Hezbollah were created and strengthened under smothering Israeli oppression, each generation more ruthless and fanatical than the previous. It may be true that Jordan, Egypt and even Syria have been coerced into peace by Israeli tactics, Syria and Iran are content to foment terrorism by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has military capabilities that are stronger than some governments. No country would tolerate a government within a government on their border.
But I've been raised with the value that two wrongs don't make a right. Kidnapped of soldiers does not justify a bombing campaign whose victims are mainly innocent civilians, including women and children. War begets more war. Hate creates more hate. The children under fire today will be the next generation of terrorists. This next generation will more than ever see Israel along side of the US as their enemy.
Reuters.com

Israel's campaign, launched after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight on Wednesday, has killed 93 people, all but two civilians, and paralyzed Lebanon's economy.


[...]The Israeli army said on Saturday it had struck about 150 targets in Lebanon so far, fewer than a dozen of them linked directly to Hezbollah. Most have hit civilian installations.


[...]Since the Gaza offensive was launched on June 28, Israel has killed about 85 Palestinians, around half of them militants.

The biggest victims of this war are the civilians and their infrastructure. Lebanon, at one point Bush's new Democracy showcase, has been condemned to destruction by Bush's mindless support of Israel. His proclamations of saving civilians and infrastructure falls on deaf ears with no consequences threatened and serves to appease the Republicans that Bush is "doing what he can." BS!
The Daily Star of Lebanon - Editorial

This week has given a sense of just how quickly things can change in the Middle East. In a matter of hours, a relatively confined conflict in the Gaza Strip erupted into a two-front war, posing a dangerous threat of even wider escalation. But perhaps the most startling development of late is that the United States is at least publicly trying to take a relatively balanced approach to the conflict unfolding in Lebanon.


But now, our fledgling independence is under fire. Only a little over a year since we started making our own decisions and trying to forge a sense of national unity, we have been hit with a crisis of unexpected proportions. Our fledgling government, which like any 1-year-old is still struggling to stay on its feet, is under fire. Our civilians, who had no part in the decision to abduct Israeli soldiers, are being killed. Our infrastructure, which has only recently been built, is being destroyed.


Yet even now, as Israel is laying waste to our country with guns and missiles paid for with US tax dollars, and as American-made bombs are raining down on our cities, we are still clinging to the same values and ideals that the Bush administration has promoted: We want life, liberty and happiness; we want democracy, sovereignty, freedom and independence.


No one is calling for the return of Syrian occupation, even though one could argue that Syria's presence served as a deterrent to this kind of Israeli onslaught. No one is asking whether the US government only asked the Syrians to step out only so that the Israelis could step in to replace them. We are holding out hope that the Americans will be faithful to the values that they have championed and protect us from further harm.


The Americans now need to choose sides, not between warring parties, but between right and wrong. They must now demonstrate their commitment to freedom, human rights and international law and speak out loudly and firmly against the killing of civilians, the destruction of infrastructure and the brutal collective punishment that all of us are now enduring.

This field of tears is full of bad guys. The only good guys are the civilians. David Ignatius identifies the threads of future history in today's events.
The Daily Star - David Ignatius

In the Lebanon crisis, we have a terrifying glimpse of the future: Iran and its radical allies are pushing toward war. That's the chilling reality behind this week's events. On Tuesday, the Iranians spurned an American offer of talks on their nuclear program; on Wednesday, their Hezbollah proxy made what Israel rightly called "an act of war." The radicals want to lure America and Israel deeper into the killing ground, confident that they have the staying power to prevail. We should not play their game.

Bush, on his adventure in Iraq, leaves the US with few options to respond.

Iraqi Elections: What is the Outcome?

The Iranian government seems to be celebrating the Iraqi election. From Iran Focus-News.

Tehran, Iran, Dec. 23 – The editorial of Iran’s leading hard-line daily hailed the outcome of Iraq’s parliamentary elections as “the creation of the first Islamist state in the Arab world”, and warned against “American plots” to prevent the formation of the new Iraqi government by Iranian-backed Shiite groups.


[...]“The American defeat and withdrawal from Iraq will forever bury the Neoconservative current in the U.S.,…while the formation of an Islamist state in Iraq, which will be a natural ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will form a contiguous link between Iran and Palestine through Syria and Lebanon, will bring about a sea change in the geo-strategic balance in the region in favour of Iran and to America’s detriment. This new alliance with its huge size will directly influence all developments in the Arab and Muslim Middle East”. Kayhan’s editorial said American officials’ recent statements on election irregularities in Iraq were aimed at forcing the pro-Iranian Shiite groups to give concessions. “They [the Iranian-backed Shiites] will not accept this”, the paper wrote. “The Americans have no choice but to leave Iraq and this must happen in the next few months”, Kayhan wrote. “Today’s Iraq shows the two sides of the Middle Eastern coin: the victory of Islamism, and the defeat and flight of the West”.

Tehran seems to be gloating. But so is Bush:
Press Conference of the President

In a nation that once lived by the whims of a brutal dictator, the Iraqi people now enjoy constitutionally protected freedoms, and their leaders now derive their powers from the consent of the government. Millions of Iraqis are looking forward to a future with hope and optimism.

But what is really happening? There are headlines that are quite disturbing. But lets dig behind the headlines for the story in Iraq. Informed Comment had a guest editorial by Andrew Arato a man who clearly knows a lot about what's going on in Iraq. Let me try to paraphrase his point of view. The Sunnis may have turned out at the election, but they are going to continue the insurrection as well. They are clearly attempting to elect a political wing as the Irish Republican Army had Sein Fein.
Kurdish representation will drop, as much as 7%, just because of the increased Sunni representation. The Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) may also drop for the same reason, but by an insignificant number.
The ultimate power in the Iraqi government is the Presidential Council. Each member of the Presidential Council, rather than only the council as a whole, will have a veto over all legislation. The Council is elected by 2/3 vote of legislative body. The UIA and a few allies will certainly be that group. If there is a sufficient block of just over 1/3 of the delegates, then that group can stop the formation of the government. If the few delegates of Alawi led by the secular Shi'ites and the Sunnis can convince the Kurds to join them, they may be able to block the formation of a government and force concessions from the UIA.
It seems likely the Kurds again will join the government with the UIA. They want control of Kirkuk. The Sunnis seem unlikely to unite behind a coalition that requires them to give up any claim on Kirkuk. Arato predicted a Sunni coalition of 30 to 40%. More recent estimates says the votes reflect 20%. And now there is a new fly in the soup.
New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 24 - An Iraqi court has ordered that at least 90 candidates in the recent national elections disqualified from serving in the Iraqi Parliament because of their ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. The head of Iraq's electoral commission, Adel al-Lami, said at a news conference here Saturday afternoon that the commission would abide by the court's ruling.


While it was not clear whether more than a handful of the affected candidates would have won seats among the 275 in Parliament, the ruling bars some Sunni Arab leaders who probably would have won. And it is sure to fuel an already deep resentment among Sunni Arabs, who are likely to again have a limited role in the new government despite a large turnout at the ballot box nine days ago.


Most of the candidates affected by the ruling are Sunni Arabs, though some are secular Shiites and others opposed to the more conservative governing Shiite alliance. Several are leaders of the slate of candidates led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, including Adnan al-Janabi and Saad al-Janabi.


Sunni Arab leaders have accused the dominant Shiite political parties of widespread ballot-box stuffing and other fraud and have called for new elections.

Juan Cole has even more sobering news.

Iraqi Supreme Court has ordered the high electoral commission to heed the warning that several leading Sunni Arab candidates were high-ranking Baathists and should be disqualified. The affected candidates are largely from the Iraqiya list of Iyad Allawi and the Iraqi Accord Front of Salih Mutlak, both of them hospitable to secular ex-Baathists. Mutlak predicted turbulence in the streets, with perfect accuracy (of course, he helped arrange for the turbulence).


Then, Al-Zaman/ AFP [Ar.] : and AP report that some 20,000 mainly Sunni protesters (along with some secular Shiites) came out in several cities to protest what they called election fraud. Demonstrations were held in Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit and Samarra, among other cities. The crowds demanded that new elections be held, given the extent of irregularities they maintained had occurred.


At one of the Baghdad rallies, Adnan Dulaimi of the National Dialogue Council (Sunni Islamist) demanded that the results of the election be abrogated in every province where any electoral fraud could be demonstrated. He pledged to "follow all peaceful and legal means to vindicate the truth and defeat falsehood." His coalition partner, Tariq al-Hashimi, the secretary general of the Iraqi Islamic Party, said, "our position of rejecting the results of the elections is reinforced daily, and before us lies the difficult mission of altering the results and achieving justice." He said, "The intention to commit fraud was present even before the ballot boxes were opened." He added, "If we do not receive an answere, we will rethink our participation in politics, for we reject a political process that some desire, based on fraud and lies." The Sunni Arabs, he said, "refuse to be second class citizens."


Shaikh Mahdi al-Sumaidaie, the preacher at the Umm al-Qura Mosque in West Baghdad said in his sermon that "The Iraqi people, which had anticipated the rise of national government that would include all groups, has been shocked by the process of election fraud, and it is something that the Iraqi people absolutely will not abide." Sumaidaie had been among the few hard line members of the Association of Muslim Scholars who had called for Sunnis to participate in the elections.


In Mosul, hundreds of demonstrators marched from the Khidr Mosque toward the governor's mansion at the center of the city, carrying Iraqi flags and placards with phrases like "The Electoral Commission is Subordinating Iraq to its Neighbors" (i.e. Iran), and shouting "No, no!" to the High Electoral Commission, which they called the "High Fraudulent Commission."


The demonstrations were called by the Iraqi Accord Front, the Iraq People's Congress, and the National Dialogue Council one day after 35 coalitions, parties and movements (including some consisting of secular Shiites) rejected the early results being announced concerning the outcome of the elections. In those results, the Shiite fundamentalist coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, won most of the seats in 9 southern provinces and in Baghdad. The demonstrators shouted that Iran had intervened in the elections, and said that even a high American official had complained about Tehran's interference (a reference to Gen. George Casey.)

In another article Juan says:

Chalabi’s INC received fewer than 9,000 votes in Baghdad. He probably will rise again. Allawi could be finished. Who will lead a “national unity” opposition to List 555 [UIA]? Step one is for the Allawi and Sunni groups to reach blocking power of 92 votes, which they probably cannot do without the PUK/KDP.


(The Bush administration's fear of Iran and of its reigning Iraqi allies in Baghdad may be destabilizing Iraq by giving ammunition to disgruntled Sunni Arabs. How many feet does the Bush administration have left to shoot itself in??)


There was a story floating around last week that a "tanker" full of "hundreds of thousands" of forged ballots coming from Iran was discovered and confiscated at the border, with the names but not the rest of the ballots filled in. This story, which has fed Sunni Arab discontent, makes no sense. First of all, you can't get hundreds of thousands of ballots on one truck, even a tanker. Paper is bulky. How would Iran have a list of plausible Iraqi voters? Iranians mostly print in nasta'liq script, not the naskh favored in the Arab world, and mostly use Persian, not Arabic. While Iranian printers could pull off such a thing, you have to ask, why? If you were going to print fake Arabic ballots for Iraq, why not just do it in Basra? It is not as if the United Iraqi Alliance, the presumed beneficiary of the alleged forgeries, does not control Iraqi printing presses in areas secure enough for it to commit fraud if it liked. I don't find the story plausible, but it appears that the US military has actually arrested Fazel "Abu Tayyib" Jasim, a provincial council member of Kut and a member of the Shiite Badr Organization (the paramilitary of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq), implicating him in the affair. I'd like to see the truck and the ballots on television. One tanker, or even a fleet of them, couldn't affect centrally an election with millions of voters.


In any case, these actions and statements of the US military are unlikely to overturn the election results, which probably give the religious Shiites control of parliament. But they could further destabilize Iraq, if that is possible. Informed sources told al-Zaman that the new government won't be formed until late February or early March.

Again from Informed Comment there may be some hope still for a government of national unity:

The dominance of the Shiite fundamentalist United Iraqi Alliance in the new parliament seems more and more clear as early election results are leaked. Although the UIA did not get every seat in the 9 predominantly Shiite provinces of the south, the other small lists that got seats would almost certainly ally with it.


The two main Sunni parties and the Allawi list have rejected the election results in Iraq and demanded new elections. They are also threatening to boycott parliament if election irregularities are not addressed. But since no one thinks that the election results were actually out of line with political reality or that there will be a rerun, the Sunni parties in particular are negotiating behind the scenes for a place in the new order.


Washington is apparently encouraging the idea of a government of national unity (called for earlier this week by Jalal Talabani) as a way of reining in the Shiite fundamentalist parties, who may well be able to form a government in their own right with the help of a few small parties. Washington fears that they are too close to Iran, and also that for them to present the Sunni Arabs with a tyranny of the Shiite majority will deepen and prolong the guerrilla war.

Richard Dreyfus has a very pessimistic view in his article at TomPaine.com:

The election disaster means that it is all the more important now for the United States to open direct, public talks with the Iraqi resistance, even if it means defying the Shiite religious-led regime. It is the United States whose 160,000 troops prop up the Shiites in power. Washington can no longer afford to give SCIRI and its junior partner, Al Dawa, veto power over its ability to negotiate a ceasefire with the opposition in order to pull out U.S. forces.


But it also means that every day that the U.S. forces remain in Iraq, the United States creates another day for the Shiite religious forces to strengthen their hand, to build their militia, and to make plans for cleansing Sunnis from majority Shiite areas. (It is, of course, with the help of the U.S. army that the Shiite militias are being incorporated into the new Iraqi army, unit by unit.) By getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, Jack Murtha-style, the United States can at the very least ensure that the Shiites do not grow all-powerful, and it might prevent a further radicalization of the Sunni-led resistance. When there are no good options, then prudence suggests that it's time to choose the least bad one.

I'm not ready to give up all hope, but the situation is dire. The Sunnis are talking, hoping to form a coalition and there are some signs that a government of national unity may be possible.
Here is an official release from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)

BAGHDAD, Dec. 21 -- Nearly 70 percent of eligible voters participated in parliamentary elections here last week, a turnout far exceeding that of the two previous Iraqi ballots this year, election officials said Wednesday. But they also said they were investigating at least 20 serious complaints of impropriety related to the election, the results of which have been hotly contested by a range of parties. "The question is not one of finger-pointing at a particular list or group, because from the information and complaints we have now, violations took place" in all provinces, said Abdul-Hussein Hendawi, who heads the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq. He provided only general details on what violations were being investigated but said U.N. experts were involved in the investigation.


[...]But several Sunni parties, along with a diverse coalition led by former prime minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite, have said they were victimized by fraud and other violations of electoral law ranging from ballot-box stuffing, to people being bused outside their home regions to vote, to police-linked militias intimidating voters. Several parties hoping to contest the election results gathered in Baghdad on Wednesday to plot strategy, among them Allawi's Iraqi National Accord slate; the Tawafaq front, which got the most votes among Sunni parties; and the National Dialogue Front, led by Sunni hard-liner Saleh Mutlak. "Our main demand is that the commission should delete names of candidates and even slates if necessary, because they cheated," said Ibrahim Janabi, who is aligned with Allawi.

And again from Informed Comment:

Al-Hayat says that Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader and current president, is calling for a government of national unity that will include Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis. Al-Sharq al-Awsat is franker about Talabani's rationale here, since he said that the Shiite-Kurdish alliance between him and prime minister Ibrahim Jaafari had not been successful. Talabani never got along with Jaafari, and was uncomfortable with being merely a ceremonial president, as is called for in the Iraqi constitution.

Then from Tehran Times:

Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Saturday called for calm and the creation of a government of national unity in the wake of the December 15 general elections, a senior official said.

Success for Bush in Iraq is hanging by a thread. If Sistani and Talabani can pull off a national unity government, they will have to work together. If they work against each other, only Sistani will have the clout to pull it off. And his method is unlikely to contain UIA. What an interesting realignment there would be if Sistani and the religious Shia parties teamed up with Talabani and Allawi and the Sunnis. Could Sistani have the courage to do this? This seems to me to be the only scenario that would head off a civil/proxy regional war.
If this unlikely scenio bears no fruit, then nothing short of a regional war is inevitable. It would seem to me that this war would last a decade and disrupt 20% of the world's oil supplies. Unless by some miracle, the EU decides to join the US and Israel, and make war on Iran, it seems likely that Iran will get it's wish of a Shi'ite Cresent from Iran to Palestine. That does not bode well for Sunni sensibilities. I think we will see a regional war, perhaps by proxy using the Sunni's of Iraq as cannon fodder. And all of a sudden Bush has to eat crow and support the Baathists in Iraq, just to contain Iran. Throw China into the mix, we may already see the allignment of WWIII.

Bush Stirring Up A War Fever Against Iran; Japan Warns of Threatening China

This time it would appear that Bush is looking to build a coalition against Iran around the issue of acquiring nuclear fuel enrichment capability. Bush has blown his credibility for me. I do worry about an Iran with nuclear weapons. They seem to be just the sort to use them.

EU and Iran agree to further round of nuclear talks 
AFP via Yahoo! Asia News - Dec 21 1:00 PM
VIENNA (AFP) - Iran and the EU agreed to meet again in January to try to set terms for resuming formal nuclear negotiations but acknowledged after a day of talks that their differences were wide.Save to My Web

EU and Iran agree to further round of nuclear talks 
TODAYonline - Dec 21 11:33 AM
Javad Vaidi(L), head of the Iranian delegation, arrives at the French embassy in Vienna, Austria. Iran and the EU agreed to meet again in January to try to set terms for resuming formal nuclear negotiations but acknowledged after a day of talks that their differences were wide.Save to My Web

Hopes slim as Iran & EU resume nuclear talks 
IranMania.com - Dec 22 2:21 AM
LONDON, December 22 (IranMania) - Iran and the European Union met to resume a nuclear dialogue broken off in August, with Tehran insisting on its right to make fuel that the West fears could be used to manufacture atom bombs.Save to My Web

Syria has signed a pact for the storage of Ians nuclear weapons and missiles Janes Defense Weekly 
DEBKAfile - Dec 21 3:45 AM
The Damascus-Tehran strategic accord is meant to protect both countries from international pressure over their banned weapons programs.Save to My Web

EU-Iran open key nuclear meeting 
IranMania.com - Dec 22 2:05 AM
LONDON, December 22 (IranMania) - Iran and the European Union opened a key meeting in Vienna, with diplomats warning hopes are slim for getting Tehran to abandon making the nuclear fuel the West says could be used to manufacture atomic bombs, AFP reported.Save to My Web

US backs European diplomacy on Iran 
AFP via Yahoo! News - Dec 21 10:39 AM
The White House said that it backed joint diplomatic efforts by Britain, France and Germany to satisfy concerns that Iran's nuclear program may hide a quest for atomic weapons.Save to My Web

Iranian Exiles: Iran Has Underground Nuclear Facilities 
Voice of America - Dec 20 6:31 PM
An Iranian exile group says Iran has built an extensive underground tunnel network to hide a secret nuclear weapons program. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) says 14 tunnels house nuclear equipment, research workshops, and command centers across Iran.Save to My Web

Iran must not have nuclear weapons: US, Germany 
Expatica - Dec 20 9:37 AM
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush said Monday that the U.S. remains committed to diplomacy to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but stressed that "we cannot allow" the Iranians to develop uranium enrichment capacity.

Meanwhile, the US appears to be helping and supporting India build a nuclear capability while it builds a stockpile of weapon's grade plutonium clearly intended to deepen it's arsenal. The Canadians are worried:

India reports progress on nuclear issues with US 
Khaleej Times - Dec 22 11:15 PM
WASHINGTON - India reported on Friday considerable progress on implementing a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States.

Canada asks India to open up nuclear reactor 
SiliconIndia - Dec 20 2:39 AM
WASHINGTON: Canada has asked India to open the nuclear reactor, which the former supplied, to allow nuclear inspectors access to the reactor. Canada says India is producing a significant amount of its weapons-grade plutonium at the reactor located north of Mumbai.

Meanwhile, Japan is sounding the alarm on China and China is for the first time is going out of it's way trying to indicate they are putting away their sabres.

N.Korea says to build light-water nuclear reactors 
Reuters - Dec 19 7:05 PM
The comment from the North's official KCNA news agency comes amid a snag in six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. It could further complicate an already difficult diplomatic process, diplomatic analysts said.

Japan says Chinas turning into a considerable threat 
The Manila Times - Dec 22 6:27 AM
TOKYO: Japan's foreign minister said Thursday that China was becoming a considerable threat because of its rising military spending and nuclear weapons, sparking a fresh row between the neighbors.

China Vows Peaceful Use Of Its Power
Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A14
The Chinese government, responding to doubts in the United States and neighboring Asian countries, made what it called a "solemn promise" Thursday that its growing power will never become a threat to other nations.

It would appear that the US, Japan and India are worried about a Syrian--Iranian--Chinese--North Korean alliance. That would truly create an ominous threat to world peace. Both Iran and China don't worry about casualties in wars in that they use human wave assaults that cause huge numbers of casualties. A strategic alliance with India appears the only hope to counter balence such an alliance.
The other hope is globalization. The more trade between protagonists, the less likely anyone will choose confrontation at the risk of their economic health. However, China has always thought long-term in it's strategic planning. Simple numbers predicts gradually increasing internal demand for goods to support future growth. A short term economic crisis could be contained internally by a external conflict that employs millions. China seems to carry the long-range trump card. I remain suspicious of China's intent, both short-term and long-term. They've been increasing military spending in double digits every year for the past 17 years. I'm sure the US arsenal looked particularly threatening until the Iraqi war. Now even Japan sees the US as a paper tiger.
Hat tip to Global Geopolitics.

Has Turkey Halted It's Move Towards EU?

The events in Turkey over the past year have suggested some within the country are second guessing their steady march to the west since 1950 when it's indigenous Democratic Party won an election. Turkey has had periods of instability where the military intruded into government via coups in 1960, 1971, 1980, 1997 whenever the elected government moved too far away from the military's preferred secular course. "Turkey joined the UN in 1945 and in 1952 it became a member of NATO. In 1964, Turkey became an associate member of the European Community; over the past decade, it has undertaken many reforms to strengthen its democracy and economy, enabling it to begin accession membership talks with the European Union."
The Turkish Judiciary, which is independent of the government, has put on trial Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk accusing him of insulting his nation.
WaPo

An acclaimed Turkish novelist, Orhan Pamuk, has been charged with the "public denigrating of Turkish identity" and faces a possible prison sentence of three years. The charge stems from an interview that Pamuk gave to a Swiss newspaper in February in which he said certain topics were regarded as off-limits in Turkey. As examples, he listed the massacre of Armenians in 1915 and the ongoing war between Turkish security forces and Kurdish guerrillas as examples. "Thirty-thousand Kurds were killed here, 1 million Armenians as well. And almost no one talks about it," Pamuk told the newspaper, Tages-Anzeiger. "Therefore, I do."


Turkey considers the Armenian deaths a consequence of war, with severe casualties on both sides, while Armenians say the deaths constitute a genocide. Under Turkish law, people can be jailed for differing with the government's line on the deaths, as well as on the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus, which Turkey invaded in 1974, and other "fundamental national interests."

Appearances as well as intolerance will help determine the EU's decision about the membership of Turkey. The Armenian issue is one primarily of appearances. There is however the issues of "collaboration regarding terrorism with Armenia and possibility that admission of Turkey to the EU might would lead inevitably to that of Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, and perhaps of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.
The issue of the Kurd have taken a much more serious turn in recent years. The strength and independence of Iraqi Kurdistan with US support, has lead to a resurgence of including Turkish Kurdistan in a homeland for the Kurds, a move Ankara would go to war over.
Some have called the timing of the prosecution of Pamuk suspicious in view of European ministers discussing Turkey's application to membership in the EU. "The European Union has described the case as a litmus test of Turkey's eligibility to join, warning that it is Ankara - rather than Mr Pamuk - that is going on trial." Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has accused the European Union of interfering in Turkey's internal affairs. Yet in a move that seems to indicate an internal power struggle, the trial has been halted by an Istanbul judge said the case needed approval by the ministry of justice.
There are further signs of ambivalence within Turkey of move towards the west.
The Turkey Travel Planner

In November 2002 a new, more moderate neo-Islamist Justice and Development Party was given a majority of seats in Turkey's Grand National Assembly, and formed the first one-party, non-coalition government in decades. A large proportion of the vote for the new Justice and Development Party was seen as a protest against the old, ineffective, corrupt political parties rather than as a vote for Islamism. The new Justice and Development Party government vowed to govern in a strictly secular manner (though guided by the moral and ethical precepts of Islam), and to maintain Turkey's close and friendly relations with Europe, Israel and the USA.

However, Turkey has hardly settled it's internal debate. The Turkish government is proposing to ban alchohol in the city centers and create Europe" href="http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article333246.ece">"drinking zones" in remote suburbs. Needless to say, secularists are enraged.
The independence ambition of Turkish Kurds also challenge the idea of democracy in Turkey. Kurdish leader Mahmoud Osman condemned recent statements by the Turkish Foreign Ministry about the non-recognition of the province of Kurdistan and its warning against playing with the future of Kirkuk, considering that they constitute interference in Iraq’s internal affairs and reflect Turkey’s fear from “the spread of democracy to its territory”.
Since the US invasion of Iraq, Turkey wonders if it's fortunes lie in the west when the most powerful western nation is stirring up trouble on it's borders to the east.
MEMRI

"Turkish-American relations have been in a process of erosion for a long time. The strategic partnership is long over. And after it ended, unfortunately no effort was made to redefine our relations. We [at ARI] decided to do that. […] With the aim of re-defining and strengthening the [bilateral] relations, we first had a round-table discussion […] and then as a delegation we spent a week in meetings in Washington.

Not surprisingly, Turkey has been approached by Russia who seeks to undermine Turkey's traditional role in NATO as a buttress towards them. Russia has been increasing military and technological consultations with Turkey.

In Iran, Arming for Armageddon?

WaPo OP-Ed: Charles Krauthammer

[...]The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. [...]


[The] Holocaust [was a]"myth," a "legend" that was "fabricated . . . under the name 'Massacre of the Jews.' " This brought the usual reaction from European and American officials, who, with Churchillian rage and power, called these statements unacceptable. [...]


To be sure, Holocaust denial and calls for Israel's destruction are commonplace in the Middle East. They can be seen every day on Hezbollah TV, in Syrian media, in Egyptian editorials appearing in semiofficial newspapers. But none of these aspiring mass murderers are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that could do in one afternoon what it took Hitler six years to do: destroy an entire Jewish civilization and extinguish 6 million souls.[...]


But it gets worse. The president of a country about to go nuclear is a confirmed believer in the coming apocalypse. Like Judaism and Christianity, Shiite Islam has its own version of the messianic return -- the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. The more devout believers in Iran pray at the Jamkaran mosque, which houses a well from which, some believe, he will emerge.


When Ahmadinejad unexpectedly won the presidential elections, he immediately gave $17 million of government funds to the shrine. Last month Ahmadinejad said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.


And as in some versions of fundamentalist Christianity, the second coming will be accompanied by the usual trials and tribulations, death and destruction. Iranian journalist Hossein Bastani reported Ahmadinejad saying in official meetings that the hidden imam will reappear in two years.


So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is [...] near[. ...]This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.


To be sure, there are such madmen among the other monotheisms. The Temple Mount Faithful in Israel would like the al-Aqsa mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount destroyed to make way for the third Jewish Temple and the messianic era. The difference with Iran, however, is that there are all of about 50 of these nuts in Israel, and none of them is president.


The closest we've come to a messianically inclined leader in America was a secretary of the interior who 24 years ago,[...] James Watt[.]


[...]missiles that are paraded through the streets with, literally, Israel's name on them. (They are adorned with banners reading "Israel must be wiped off the map.") It gets worse. After his U.N. speech in September, Ahmadinejad was caught on videotape telling a cleric that during the speech an aura, a halo, appeared around his head right on the podium of the General Assembly. "I felt the atmosphere suddenly change. And for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. . . . It seemed as if a hand was holding them there, and it opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic Republic."

Charles Krauthammer is pretty clearly the token neo-con at WaPo given his Googled literary history. He's written for Townhall.com, Jewish Jewish World Review, the Weekly Standard, and Time.com praising the Bush Doctrine. It's not clear whether he believes this stuff or not. But clearly many Jews world wide do.
Indeed Iran is a threat to Israel. And I agree, Iran's leadership doesn't much care about casualties, they sacrificed millions of teenagers in human wave assaults beating back Sadaam's Republican Guard. And I agree that Israel would be devastated by a nuclear assault.
But he's missed the boat in a number of places. First of all, Bush appears to be another wacko who is hastening armageddon. Obviously, if he were too concerned about Christian or Jewish fanatics, he would have mentioned someone other than Watt. There are plenty who were in the adminstration who have been "believers and plenty of Bush supporters who share those beliefs".
The other piece missing in this story is the recent reports that Ahmadinejad is on the outs with the Imams in power. He appears to be playing the hate and bigotry card to try to consolidate and regain control over the government.

Central Asia Moves Away From the US

Bush has lacked a cohesive foreign policy throughout his Administration. The incompetency unfortunately extends beyond Iraq to Central Asia. However, the Washington Post editorial today shows the same shallow reasoning that got Bush into trouble.

IS RUSSIA a partner of the United States in the war on terrorism? You wouldn't know it from the bitter campaign Moscow is waging to thwart President Bush's democracy agenda in Muslim Central Asia. Mr. Bush rightly believes that political liberalization in the energy-rich and mostly authoritarian republics that lie north of Iran and Afghanistan is essential to denying Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist movements influence or bases in the region. Yet Moscow insists on portraying U.S. encouragement of free media and free elections as a plot to extend Western influence at Russia's expense. Russian President Vladimir Putin offers a warm embrace to any autocrat who rejects reform.


[...]Uzbekistan thus joined an emerging Moscow-led bloc of dictatorships. Belarus, home of Europe's last strongman, and Turkmenistan, ruled by a despot whose cult of personality rivals that of Kim Jong Il, are charter members; Mr. Putin is also working hard to win over authoritarian Armenia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Through his diplomats and the Russian media, he conducts a mendacious propaganda campaign, arguing that U.S. support for independent civic groups, free media and opposition political parties is a cover for CIA-sponsored coups. He presses Central Asian governments to expel U.S. forces from bases while offering energy and military deals of his own. He publicly applauds fraudulent elections and crackdowns on opposition movements.

Bush first engaged the new republics in Central Asia, seeking bases and cooperation. Speaking of human rights and liberalizing the political process were appropriate topics for discussion. But contrary to the Neocons perspective that democracy will sprout where ever you feed it, we see in every headline on Iraq how naive that position was. Yet, Bush stupidly changed course in his second term, using coercion to the sitting governments and covert aid to the political opposition, he actively undermined what had been a good start in engaging Central Asia.
Recognizing the threat, they have one by one turned back to Russia as a friend they can trust, who supports their values. Russia is merely exploiting Bush's incompetence.
The active engagement of China begun by Nixon is a good example of the approach that might have worked. Once countries share a economic success through heavy trade, persuasion, even gentle coercion becomes an option. Bush played his cards before he had a winning hand.
Truly, the article points out some of the ways Russia has not been helpful. But isolating Russia and restarting the cold war will make things worse, not better. Quiet diplomacy and active trade is a potent long range strategy with all potential adversaries.

The Secret Overpowering Influence of the Military Industrial Complex

We were warned by Eisenhower about the military industrial complex (MIC) in 1961. America promptly forgot his warning. Political leaders benefited working both government policy positions and lucrative corporate contractors. Ultimately, government policy is made by those who benefit from the policy. Many of our leaders believe what's good for Halliburton, is good for America. Most of the leadership in this adminstration will end there government service sometime in the next three years and rejoin the MIC.
This is a must read article. It's first in a set of 3 articles the author will write for Buzzflash.com. The following is an excerpt focused on recent warnings of the MIC by political insiders. Heads up America, your democracy is in grave danger.
Maureen Farrell

A couple years ago, historian Chalmers Johnson predicted that thanks to the "entrenched interests" of the military-industrial complex, the United States can look forward to a future of perpetual war, increased propaganda, fewer Constitutional rights, and a bloated executive branch. America, he warned, "will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787" unless there is a "revolutionary rehabilitation of American democracy."


[...]By late 2005, when Andy Rooney played a segment of Eisenhower's speech on CBS' 60 Minutes, the implications were evident: "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist," Eisenhower said in 1961. "Well, Ike was right. That's just what's happened," Rooney remarked.


[...]"What has become of the American people that they permit the despicable practices of tyrants to be practiced in their name?" former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts recently asked. "The Bush administration is in violation of the US Constitution, the rule of law, the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg Standard, and basic humanity. It is a gang of criminals," he wrote.


Former President Jimmy Carter also voiced concern. "Everywhere you go, people ask, "What has happened to the United States of America?" he said, referring to international reaction to America's evolving stance on human rights, the environment and the separation of church and state.


The most striking criticism has come from Bush administration exiles, however. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, recently offered a scathing critique, confirming reports that a "cabal" led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had "hijacked foreign policy" and that this cabal's "insular and secret workings" led to "decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy."


With government insiders now sounding such alarms, concerns cannot be attributed to the New World Order fringe. It's clear that something is amiss -- something that's eroding our character, our reputation and our values. How did this come about? Just how far have we strayed from our democratic ideals?

Applying the Lessons of History to Iraq

Scooter Libby pled not guilty today. It seems hard to believe he would do that, but in this age of O. J. Simpson, a high paid attorney can get you off no matter what evidence there is. Juan Cole at Informed Comment says that it seems apparent Libby wasn't primarily concerned about protecting his old boss, he could have pleaded guilty. He correctly points out that a trial might incriminate Cheney or his aide John Hannah or even Karl Rove. "My own interpretation is that it is now every man for himself. That is not good news for Bush."

But as Emptywheel points out at
The Next Hurrah, Libby and hired Ted Wells and "Bush family consigliere James Baker's colleague, William Jeffress to manage his defense." I seriously doubt Baker's partner would sign on as Libby's attorney unless it was at the request or at least with the permission of Bush himself. Loyalty runs
deep in the Bush family.

This Administration has gone far out of it's way to
defraud the American people into the Iraq war. Where were the lessons of history?

Traditionally, broad principles of foreign policy varies little from one administration to another, even when the transition crosses party lines. After 9/11, Bush, with the encouragement of the Neocons, threw out the book, creating what as come to be known as the
Bush Doctrine . Based on the assumption that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", the Bush Administration decided it "would take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower", including but not limited to, preemptive wars against potential aggressors, even if done so unilaterally, without United Nations
sanction, without the support or participation of NATO or other allies. While projecting US military and economic interests, they would actively promoting democracy and freedom in all regions of the world. As we can see by recent events, this was hardly a policy only of altruism. It was also political cover for the most aggressive foreign policy ever pursued by a 20th Century President of the United States. Bush, deftly dodged all criticism by declaring at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life." The new
policy was fully delineated in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States issued on September 17, 2002.

Several former government officials have come out against all or part of the Bush Doctrine. Most recently, Bush Sr's Secretary of Defense Brent
Scowcroft spoke out against the Neocon naïveté, particularly Paul Wolfowitz idealistic and unrealistic view that Democracy can be exported. Now Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin R. Laird applies the principles he learned from the Vietnam era. Like Scowcroft, Laird pulls no punches.

Foreign Affairs - Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam

For me, the alleged prison scandals reported to have occurred in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay have been a disturbing reminder of the mistreatment of our own POWs by North Vietnam. The conditions in our current prison camps are nowhere near as horrific as they were at the "Hanoi Hilton," but that is no reason to pat ourselves on the back. The minute we begin to deport prisoners to other nations where they can legally be tortured, when we hold people without charges or trial, when we move prisoners around to avoid the prying inspections of the Red Cross, when prisoners die inexplicably on our watch, we are on a slippery slope toward the inhumanity that we deplore.

[...]
As the secretary of defense who ended the draft in 1972, I see no need to return to conscription, even now that the prospect of combat has somewhat dampened the enthusiasm for military service. As long as service people -- current and future -- know where their president is leading them, the enlistments will follow.

[...]
But one lesson learned from Vietnam that is not widely recognized is that fear of casualties is not the prime motivator of the American people during a war. American soldiers will step up to the plate, and the American public will tolerate loss of life, if the conflict has worthy, achievable goals that are clearly espoused by the administration and if their leadership deals honestly with them.

[...]
Reserve and National Guard units are understaffed and have been abused by deployments that have taken individuals out of their units to serve as de facto army regulars, many in specialties for which they have not been trained, a practice that eats at the morale of reservists. Nearly 80 percent of the airlift capacity for this war and about 48 percent of the troops have come from Reserve and National Guard units. The high percentages are due, in part, to the specialized missions of those troops: transporting cargo, policing, rebuilding infrastructure, translating, conducting government affairs -- in short, the stuff of building a new nation. We have realized too late that our regular army forces have not been as well trained as they should have been for the new reality of an urban insurgent enemy. Nor was the military hierarchy paying serious attention to the hints that their mission in the twenty-first century would be nation building.

[...]
Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to reshape the army to be more mobile with fewer soldiers, in "units of action" built on the Special Forces model. But he is not being honest with himself or with Congress and the American people about how much money will be needed to make the transformation. Those specialized units will be more suited for urban guerrilla warfare, but light and lean is not the only way to maintain our military. Although guerrilla warfare looks like the wave of the future, we still face the specter of conventional divisional and corps warfare against other enemies. Both capabilities are expensive, but the downward trend of defense budgets does not recognize that. Except for bumps up in the Ronald Reagan years and during the Gulf War, the defense budget has been on a downward slide when viewed in constant dollars. We are coasting on the investments in research, development, and equipment made during earlier years.

[...]
Our pattern of fighting our battles alone or with a marginal "coalition of the willing" contributes to the downward spiral in resources and money. Ironically, Nixon had the answer back in 1969. At the heart of the Nixon Doctrine, announced that first year of his presidency, was the belief that the United States could not go it alone. As he said in his foreign policy report to Congress on February 18, 1970, the United States will participate in the defense and development of allies and friends, but "America cannot -- and will not -- conceive all the plans, design all the programs, execute all the decisions and undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world. We will help where it makes a real difference and is considered in our interest".


Three decades later, we have fallen into a pattern of neglecting our treaty alliances, such as NATO, and endangering the aid we can give our allies by throwing our resources into fights that our allies refuse to join. Vietnam was just such a fight, and Iraq is, too. If our treaty alliances were adequately tended to and shored up -- and here I include the UN -- we would not have so much trouble persuading others to join us when our cause is just.
MORE

Digby at Hullabaloo analyzes the Democrat's failures after 9/11. He also correctly points out that in hindsight, Clinton already took care of Sadaam's arsenal that remained after the first Gulf war.

A lot of Democrats (including both Clintons) made a political gamble that after 9/11 they had to support the invasion because if it was successful they would have been tagged as soft. They were fighting the last war, Gulf War I, in which many Democrats looked foolish for having objected to such a painless, inexpensive, glorious victory. I'm afraid that many of the Democratic leadership bet on the wrong horse ---- again. It is, sadly, a testament to how badly they deal with foreign policy that they got it wrong both times.


A lot of us out here in Real Murika didn't because we weren't playing politics --- just assessing the situation and deciding whether it made sense.


Still, it was undoubtedly difficult. 9/11 had cast a spell on our country, abetted by a media that turned the "war on terror" into an epic pageant of national pride and patriotism to such an extent that to question, much less oppose, was an act of political courage. There are very few politicans of either party with much of that: Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Chafee (R-RI),
Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA),
Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).


Those were the Senators who voted against the resolution. How good, smart and prescient they appear today. The ones who didn't showed lousy instincts. When the president is an idiot, it should be easy to conclude that he is not going to make good decisions about the need for war --- or anything else. Millions of us knew the constant blathering about Bush's great "leadership" after 9/11 was hype. They should have too.


But still, even the most craven Democratic opportunist cannot be held responsible for the administration's repeated assertion's that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger" or that the Bush Doctrine was dutifully printed out from the PNAC web-site and distributed after 9/11 without any serious consideration of its ramifications. Bush was pushing a line that had many people wondering if he didn't know something that the rest of us didn't. It was incomprehensible to a lot of Americans that an American president would be so reckless as to launch a war on unverified information.


There was no good reason to stage an invasion based upon the threat
assessment we had. 9/11 actually made that proposition more dangerous and short sighted than it would have been before. They knew this, which is why they hyped the threat with visions of mushroom clouds and nefarious drone planes disguised a crop dusters. They knew that if we relied solely upon the threat assessment that the Clinton administration relied upon, the country would not back their war. So they lied. The true irony is that it now appears that Clinton managed to accomplish what Bush said needed to be done, with a heavy bombing campaign during his own impeachment. (Talk about multi-tasking.)
Bush came along and spent billions of dollars, stretched our military beyond its capabilities, destroyed our international credibility and got tens of thousands killed to accomplish something that had already been done in 1998.

The fact is, after the end of Persian Gulf War in 1991, Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, already got it right with what has been called the Powell Doctrine. Powell was persuaded to expand its original concept to fit the realities of Gulf War II by strong arm tactics of Cheney and Rumsfeld. He is, more than anything, a good soldier. His commander in Chief demanded he support the Bush Doctrine. If Powell had been allowed to act as Secretary of State rather than be pre-empted by the cabal around Cheney, perhaps we would have avoided this war.

...the Doctrine expresses that military action should
be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

Powell also was opposed to unilateral action and openly attempted to build an alliance against Iraq with marginal results. I'd bet he's never been much of a supporter of the Bush Doctrine. More likely, he supported the Nixon Doctrine.