Thursday, February 16, 2006

Iraqi Death Squads

Read the news: Apparent Death Squad Is Linked to Iraqi Ministry -- Washington Post

It should come as little surprise that the dilapidated, destroyed and distraught region we call Iraq is in turmoil. For decades, Saddam Hussein's Sunni minority held brutal power over the Shi'ite majority, a feat accomplished through mass murder and torture.

Now, the sides have inverted. The Shi'ite majority democratically holds power over the Sunni minority. Oppression, which the Shi'ites have seen for decades, has finally been alleviated and the oppressors dismantled. In any place, let alone Iraq, one would expect the bullied to return the same treatment to their former bullies. And so they have and will.

The Shi'ite religious factions possess armed branches, as is the trend in the country, which are now accused of mass murder against Sunni citizens. These "death squads" masquerade as police, or are policemen, and capture Sunni "suspects" and then execute them. The Sunnis, of course, can do little politically but protest to Coalition authority.

Irony has a dastardly way of reverberating through history, especially in Iraq. It was genocide against the Shi'ites that helped cause Saddam to be removed from power. It has been mass murder (pardon my French, "collateral damage") and torture by the US that has removed him from power, and now the Sunnis are feeling the effects of their own wicked medicine: mass murder and torture. A cynic might say that it seems fair, an eye for an eye as the Babylonians contended, but that's what got us here in the first place.

Monday, February 13, 2006

History Repeats: Haitian Politics

Haiti is engaged in a violent mass of uprisings and protest over the disputed vote for Haitian President. Preval, the choice of the poor masses, has dropped below the 50% mark that is required for election. The poor blame election fraud, while the UN is trying to keep everything from escalating any further than it already has.

Read more here: "Angry Preval Supporters Protest Haitian Vote Results" -- Washington Post

But this type of violent Haitian political conflict has happened before. Back when Haiti was but a colony, it rebelled in the first slave revolt. The revolt was bloody, and effective. Given tradition, the UN has its hands full to ensure peace in Haiti.
Haitian Revolution -- Wikipedia

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

State of the Union: Anti-Isolationism

Washington Post -- State of the Union summary


The President's speech epitomized the agenda of the neoconservative movement in America: it is the duty of the United States to intervene against autocrats for the sake of spreading democracy. I would say that neoconservatism is also the new imperialism under the guise of benevolence and humanitarianism for indigenous peoples.


The President attacked the long-established isolationist role that the forefathers and great leaders of America espoused. By isolationism, I am referring, as well as President Bush is referring, to non-intervention in military and political affairs.


Our first President, George Washington, said this in his farewell address about the future of American foreign policy:


“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

America has had a policy of avoiding messy alliances and of avoiding enforcing our wills and beliefs upon others. Other nations and sovereign entities are not culturally similar to our nation, but their rights as humans still exist to not be oppressed by powerful leaders. Under the guise of halting tyrannical leaders, Bush’s foreign policy takes power from “evil” dictators, but places it in the hands of the United States. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is autonomous, despite election of some leaders.


Isolationism kept America out of the World Wars until hostile powers attacked innocent Americans who were unengaged in the wars. The World Wars were the result of imperialist competition among the European powers, great quests to colonize African and Asian lands for economic benefit. This imperialism, and tangled webs of alliances allowed peaceful commercial ambition to escalate into World Wars that attempted to establish global dominance.


Neoconservatism and anti-Isolationism stride together for the same purpose: establishing America as the most powerful force in the world, while silently and dastardly establishing economic and political suppression that only unfairly aids our nation at the cost of poverty and famine and inequitable lives for the people in the developing nations that we attack. Anti-Isolationism and neoconservatism are polysyllabic public relations terms used by politicians of both sides, yet neither exposes the reality: America is engaged in a new imperialist quest for territory, resources, and hegemony.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Congress research group finds Bush at fault

"Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps" -- Washington Post


"The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday." -- Washington post

Monday, January 16, 2006

EU-3, USA, Russia, China agree

The EU-3, Russia, China, and the United States are all in agreement against continued Iranian nuclear development.


"The powers stopped short of referring the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions, instead calling for an emergency board meeting of the International Atomic Energy on Feb. 2-3 to discuss the issue. The 35-nation IAEA board could itself refer the issue to the Security Council." -- Washington Post.


Russia has extended an invitation to Iran to avert a crisis by developing their nuclear fuel in Russia. Such a scenario would facilitate more intense scrutiny of Iran's nuclear development and would quell any doubts about Iran's nuclear intentions. Iran has not ruled out this option, according to the Post article.

This is good news for international support against Iran. International support, as outlined in yesterday's post ("The Middle East Cauldron"), is imperative against Iran, both for Bush's political record and for a peaceful resolution to the nuclear conflict.

However, Russia and China still haven't pressed for a meeting of the Security Council. Russia and China hold two out of the five votes on the powerful board, which has the authority to impose economic sanctions against Iran. The two nations could have two motives for not pressing for an immediate Security Coucil meeting:

  1. Avoiding Iran's threat of blocking all international inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency if the Council is called.
  2. Avoiding a cutoff of Iranian oil and an international price rise in fuel if sanctions are imposed by the Coucil.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

The Middle East Cauldron

The Middle East, united under the banner of Islam after Muhammed, was once the home of the great empire of the caliphs. Culture, knowledge, and trade once flowed through the region - focused in grand, ornate centers like Bagdhad, Damascus, and Istanbul. But after diminished power and opulence, the Allied victors of the World Wars divided the region into mandates, arbitrarily creating new nations and oblivious to the deeper ethnic and religious divisions ripening there.

Now the Middle East is much like a giant cauldron, filled with the ingredients of civil war, extremism, opposition, nuclear standoff, and poverty. These ingredients are just waiting for a catalyst, something to spark a reaction of epic proportions that will culminate in more bloodshed. That catalyst has been the United States, though not entirely by the poor decisions the United States has made.

Extremist leaders of underdeveloped nations in the Middle East have been long put at odds with America over our support of Israel, our Western tradition, and our demands for inexpensive, but vast, quantities of petroleum. There is much disparity between the essence of Western culture and traditional Muslim culture that does not facilitate a strong relationship between the two.

When Iraq invaded tiny Kuwait, the world responded. bin Laden's mujahadeen had just finished battling the incursion of the Soviets (backed by US aid, no less) and were looking for a new target for their continuing battle to protect the Islamic homeland and the Islamic religion from Western influence or control. However, when Saudi Arabia chose to allow the Coalition forces to stage operations from the nation instead of bin Laden's holy warriors, bin Laden immediately placed himself opposite the United States and declared a jihad against America. He believed that American military prescence in Saudi Arabia tarnished the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, which houses Mecca and Medina, the holiest Islamic cities.

The tragedy of September 11 served its purpose for al Qaeda - it propagated fear throughout the country. It had the proportional opposite effect on the extreme Islamic traditional front and anti-American support burgeoned.

Afghanistan was not a mistake and international support confirms this. However, the military presence in Afghanistan helped al Qaeda recruitment as America was depicted as an evil oppressor.

Iraq showed the world, especially the Middle East, that Bush America is committed to military action in the region. Iraq's situation was unique, its central location allowed for an influx of insurgents and an open battlefield between the West and the hard core Islamists.

America's military expeditions struck deep into the core of the Islamic world and has upset the balance of Sunni and Shia power in Iraq. The tumult there and America's continued prescence is seeping into adjacent countries and will indubitably continue to escalate.

The unrest is apparent in the region. In Pakistan, US strikes within the border have set off protests across Pakistan and Iranian opposition and nuclear development. Where this will culminate will probably be Iran.

What America needs to do is use the international community, use the diplomatic capabilites we have, and stop the warmongering escapades into the Middle East when diplomatic efforts are far more effective. Such was the case with Iraq. If international diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to convince Iran to comply with international inspectors, then the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons becomes real. If such circumstances exist, then it is imperative that international support be sought and acquired for military action.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

CIA strikes innocents in Pakistan

Pakistanis Condemn Purported CIA Attack


By RIAZ KHAN
The Associated Press
Saturday, January 14, 2006; 6:57 PM

DAMADOLA, Pakistan -- Pakistani officials on Saturday angrily condemned a purported CIA airstrike meant to target al-Qaida's No. 2 man, saying he wasn't there and "innocent civilians" were among at least 17 men, women and children killed in a village near the Afghan border.


The strike in Pakistan marks the next in a series of missle strikes against insurgents within Pakistan's border over the last several weeks, officially unacknowledged by US officials. The attacks are disturbing because they violated Pakistan's sovereignty and authority.


"Last Saturday, U.S. helicopters reportedly attacked a house in the North Waziristan tribal region, killing eight people. Two days later, Pakistan lodged a protest with the U.S. military in Afghanistan." -- Washington Post article


Yet another of our Muslim allies is feeling the consequences of trying to be friendly with the United States. Pakistan has been a valuable asset to the War on Terror, much to President Musharref's detriment, yet their support is being taken advantage of by the United States's eagerness to curb terrorism abroad.

Indeed, the most flagrant travesty here is not the political consequence or the international riff developing; it is the killing of at least 17 innocents, or 30 by local estimates. The culprit? Faulty intelligence - again.

Is Iran Next?

Today, newly elected German Chancellor Angela Merkel held a press conference with President Bush regarding the world support against a nuclear-armed Iran.

Iran -- the Shi'ite capital of the Islamic world, the vast remnants of the magnificent Persian Empire, the home of Ayatolla Komeini and Ahmadinejad, and adjacent neighbor to Iraq. Why attack such a place? Here's the reason I would cite that the President might conceivably use to support a war against Iran, and why it would incorporate UN support.



  • Shia Islam - Iran is an Islamic Republic dominated by the religious Shi'ite majority. Iraq, too, is a Shi'ite religious majority after the democratic elections. If the United States were to pull out of Iraq, Iran would embolden and aid Iraq -- resulting in a large, allied, Shia extremist force in the Middle East. Obviously, this would cause more polarization and confliction among the various religious and ethnic groups already residing in the region.
  • Israel - The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has stated that the Holocaust was a "myth" and that Israel doesn't belong in the Middle East; his bias against Israel is outspoken. Israel has nuclear weapons, a unilateral possession in the region, allowing Israel the sole power to protect itself with the threat of nuclear defense. Iran would conceivably rejoice in having such capability for themselves and leveling the nuclear playing field.
  • The oil threat of China - In the near future, more of China's 1.3 billion person populace will demand automobile transportation. China will face an exponential surge in the demand for petroleum from its people and will need to procure such a resource from a Middle Eastern source. The West has laid claim to a large majority of the oil market, but China has a potential commercial ally in Iran. When such a craze for oil develops, (when, not if), the competition between the US, Europe and China for oil will be fierce. If the United States's supply of oil is protected by invading Iran it will surely be a motive, though an unadvertised one.
  • Ahmadinejad - The President of Iran is not a globalist, in fact, just the opposite. His concerns are with his Islamist strides and with utilizing Iran's oil to make his nation more powerful. The latter is understandable. However, his Islamist, rebellious leadership has regularly alienated Iran from the international community. Iran is now finding itself against the world, yet Ahmadinejad claims that Iran is unperturbed by suggested sanctions and the suspicious eye of the international community.
  • Iranian nuclear development - After agreements with the International Atomic Energy Assosciation (IAEA), Iran agreed to temporarily halt most of its nuclear production, and the IAEA sealed several of its plants. However, Iran has reopened these plants in violation of international accord, and amidst complaints from global leaders.

    Iran claims its intentions are innocent -- to develop a civilian nuclear energy program in which the limited research being conducted at the reopened facilities would yield a self-reliant nuclear system in Iran. Such a scheme would seem reasonable and allowable to the international community. However, ulterior motives seem to be present in this case.

    Iran's research would develop nuclear fuel, which could be refined into civilian energy production, or nuclear weapons. Tehran won't allow international inspectors to browse through all of its potential nuclear sectors, especially its military bases. It is here in these bases that military nuclear technology would most conceivably develop.



Iran has set itself up for scrutiny and opposition by world powers, and the EU-3 have already aligned themselves with the United States in the stand against Iranian nuclear development. If the Iranians would be frank and open, international inspectors would be free to conclude that nuclear weapon production is nonexistant. The fact that they won't allow inspectors infers that they are hiding something, and time will tell what.

The Pen (Keyboard) Is Mightier than the Sword

Darfur may save itself from its violent past:

African Rebels Take Their Battles Online



By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 14, 2006; Page A16

NAIROBI -- The leaders of the main rebel movement in Sudan's Darfur region were once brothers in arms. But last year, the two powerful men had a falling out, and each proclaimed he was the rightful president of the Sudanese Liberation Army. Things got ugly.

But not a single shot was fired. Instead, the feuding insurgents battled as bloggers over the Internet.




Blogs are now the digital battlegrounds of Africa's most dangerous regions, but this is potentially progress. If the embattled region can solve its political differences through the internet and through debate (although this is more like a propaganda match), then they avoid the slaughter of millions in bloody civil wars. Unfortunately, this could always escalate into more battles.