Fo-Po Breakdown: Iran, USA, and a tad bit of Turkey

I am aware that this is sort of old news. However, since I have been busy lately and this is still an important on-going problem, I will write my blog post about it anyway. This began as a reaction to an op-ed in the New York Times, by Princeton doctoral candidate Elliot Hen-Tov and Princeton professor of Near Eastern Studies, Bernard Haykel. With the recent tightening of the newest sanctions on Iran this past Thursday, July 1, 2010, it is important to revisit this issue.

First, back to the op-ed from last month. In order to make any real headway on US-Iran relations, it is absolutely essential that each side really understand the other. For prominent scholars of prestigious universities, this also holds true. Which is why this article must be revisited – the Princeton people have it wrong. Their main assertion is that “Iran… stands to lose much influence as Turkey assumes a surprising new role as the modern, democratic and internationally respected nation willing to take on Israel and oppose America.” While parts of this statement are correct, the article represents a flawed understanding of Iranian politics and its relationship to the United States. Principally, it does not really matter for the United States (or Israel for that matter) what type of fiery rhetoric Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses – it is generally not directed at American or Israeli audiences anyway. The poll quoted by the authors, although irrelevant to their article, proves this point. The two major regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, whose regime is a strong US ally, and Iran, whose regime clearly is not. When Ahmadinejad makes his statements in “support” of the Palestinian cause, he also does so bearing in mind that this can also play on Saudi Arabia’s weaknesses. Iran can claim to be the true supporter of Muslims in peril (despite a substantial number of Palestinians being of Christian or other backgrounds) while simultaneously making the Saudi regime appear weak to its people by alluding to its close relationship to the USA. In this manner, the Iranian regime hopes to remain dominant in the region over Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states.

Ahmadi-casual-Friday-nejad is not some “irrational, rouge leader” as realist IR theory would have us believe. The Iranian government’s support of Israel is mostly a domestic campaign to give the regime the appearance of standing up to the hegemonic rule of the United States and then Israel. Given the vastly superior military forces of both the USA and Israel, Iran would not risk attacking Israel. So, while these authors note that Turkey is seen by Palestinians as a much closer ally than Iran, it is crucial to understand that Iran’s political exploitation of this crisis is mostly for the purpose of bolstering domestic support for the regime and is targeted to domestic and Saudi, not international, audiences.

Secondly, I take issue with the Islam in Turkey being called “more liberal and enlightened.” Again, this is a fundamental mis-characterization of reality. While Saudi Arabia and Iran might be self-proclaimed Islamic states and Turkey a self-proclaimed secular state, the notion that any one regime is any more or less liberal/enlightened than the other is absurd when further examining their actual policies. In Iran, women are obligated to wear hijab at all times; in Turkey, there are laws making it illegal to wear the veil in some public places. Forcing people to appear secular is no better than forcing people to appear pious – these are merely two extreme ends of the spectrum. In a liberal Islam, it would seem that one would have the ability to choose without being compelled towards either end of such a spectrum. Furthermore, the fiercely secular and authoritarian policies enacted by the Turkish government can be just as bad as the authoritarian policies of Iran.

Returning to the sanctions and Turkey’s vote (along with Brasil), it is not really that much “against the United States” for Turkey to vote against the sanctions. The United States, while allies with Turkey, is far stronger allies with Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, with the United States’ help, has stronger military and economic ties to the USA, and it is closer to the other Arab states in the Middle East than Turkey is. With Turkey looking to gain membership to the European Union, it is smart to keep its options open for markets in the Middle East for the EU, but if push came to shove for the United States, I would bet that it would retain Saudi Arabia as its ally over Turkey. Anyway, Iran and Saudi Arabia are focused on each other and Turkey is focused on the EU, so it really does not matter for Iran what Turkey says – although its vote was nice anyway.

As stated in the BBC article, the sanctions imposed in June were not very substantial. This would suggest that the Obama administration is just reacting initially to [uneducated] domestic pressures in Congress to appear to be doing something about the Iranian nuclear program. While it is good that these sanctions were not substantial, it is also extremely damaging to any potential for improving diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, only serving to prove Ahmadinejad correct when he claims that the United States is really not interested in changing the status quo. Bolstering domestic support for the current Iranian regime is the last thing that the United States should be doing.

In a more recent development, Nom Chomsky acknowledges that Iran poses a serious threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, despite citing sources earlier on in the article that discuss Iran’s relatively weak military capabilities; he just proposes different solutions instead of the United States “reinforcing [its] control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions.” However, with Iran, this is not a valid argument either. Georgetown scholar Mehran Kamrava and University of Colorado professor Nader Hashemi are both of the opinion that Iran does not want to actually acquire a nuclear weapon. If Iran were to obtain the technology and actually produce a nuclear weapon, this would push Iran into a whole new realm of military prowess in which it would find itself on the bottom, easily bested several times over by the United States, Israel, etc. In other words, Iran can be a relatively strong conventional military power in the region, especially when compared to Saudi Arabia’s military on its own (aka minus USA support), but it would lose this advantage if it entered the nuclear arena and would find itself in a situation it cannot win. Thus, even the idea that Iran’s nuclear program to gain such knowledge is the most serious threat is absurd. The best solution would be to focus on finding common ground and interests within the Middle East between Iran and the United States (two really good examples here are Afghanistan and Iraq… hint, hint State Department) and go from here to rebuild diplomatic ties.

Speaking of best solutions, July 1^st was not one of these. The New York Times reports that President Obama signed a law in one of the few moments of consensus in Congress during his administration that “imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” As stated several times before, the solution is to OPEN not close relations with Iran. This means diplomatically and economically. As Ahmadi-I-say-crazy-things-that-people-should-not-listen-to-nejad stated on June 28 that he would like to resume nuclear negotiations with the United States in August, giving the United States yet another opportunity to resume meaningful dialogue, the Obama administration missed it again and chose to respond to domestic pressures. This is where the State Department people need to step in and fix it.

Caving into absurd, ill-informed domestic pressures from a Congress that cannot even agree if sick people should get help to be less sick is certain to make the problem worse, not better. The Obama administration needs to focus on its priorities, improve its image in the Muslim world and the Middle East by closing Guantanamo and playing a meaningful role in improving the situation between Israel and Palestinian territories, and respecting the sovereignty of Iran and its government despite the outcome of the 2009 presidential elections. It is certainly not an easy task and will take time to produce the change promised by the Obama campaign, but it will be easier to accomplish with greater understanding of the nuances of regional politics in the Middle East and when the United States takes an active stance by following through on some good faith measures and working with Iran as a regional power in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the United States and Iran have a lot to gain from improving relations with one another and since the United States remains the global hegemonic power in this system of uni-multipolarity, it must responsibly take the first steps to initiate this process.

Afghan Women Update

Back in April, 300 women took to the streets of Kabul to protest a new law that would require Shiite women to have sex with their husbands and restrict their ability to get an education and even leave the house. The bill had passed Parliament and had been signed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but had not been published in the official gazette and was not yet law.

Now, the amended bill has been published. The amendments have hardly improved it. The bill, according to the BBC, "allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands; a woman must get her husband's permission to work; and fathers and grandfathers are given exclusive custody of children." Karzai supported the bill likely in order to win votes from the Shiite community in the impending August 20 election.

The bill is sadly just one reminder of how far away decent treatment of Afghani women still is.

Ten Steps Backward for Afghan Women

Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a law in February, curtailing the freedoms of Shiite women. Karzai supported the law to gain Shiite support in the upcoming presidential election. What would the law do?

• “Unless the wife is ill, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”
• Wives are obliged to have sex with their husbands at least once every four days.
• Women can only leave the house if they have "a legitimate purpose."
• Wives cannot work or get an education without their husband's permission.

The law triggered a firestorm of criticism, both international and Afghani. In response, Karzai ordered a review of the proposition to verify that it does not violate Afghanistan's constitutional protections. Even if though it had been passed by Parliament and signed by Karzai, the act does not become law until it is published in the official gazette.

However, Karzai also defended the measure, saying it had been "mistranslated" by the Western media.

The law only applies to Afghanistan's Shiites, who make up between a tenth and a fifth of the population. But women's rights groups are worried that it could influence pending legislation concerning Sunni families and violence against women.

About 300 women took to the streets of Kabul on April 15 to protest the law. They were taunted as "enemies of Islam" and, oddly, "whores." Some women professed their support for the law. Other women were members of the police force separating the two groups.

I would like to see more of them.

Important Headlines for 2-11-2009

While there are a lot of important things happening, these are some recent developments that are pretty important to be aware of and a few interesting things.

First of all, the current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that Iran is ready for dialogue with the USA as long as it is based on mutual respect. Here are some excerpts of the speech:

"If you really want to fight terrorism, come and cooperate with the Iranian nation, which is the biggest victim of terrorism so that terrorism is eliminated. ... If you want to confront nuclear weapons ... you need to stand beside Iran so it can introduce a correct path to you," he said.

Ahmadinejad said the world was at a "crossroads" because it had been proven that military power has not been successful — a reference to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But now, he said, "the world is entering an era of dialogue and intellect."

"The new U.S. government has announced that it wants to bring changes and follow the path of dialogue. It is very clear that changes have to be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear that the Iranian nation welcomes true changes," Ahmadinejad told the crowds at the rally in Freedom Square.

This is crucial as Iran could support the United States in being a stabilizing factor for the crises in Afghanistan and Iraq. Additionally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the USA is very determined to pursue a dialogue with Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is up for election this year and former President Khatami is one of the challengers. For more information, please click here.

A second extremely important development is in the area of health care, specifically in regard to the prevention of HIV being transmitted. Some preliminary trials have found that a microbicide produced by a Massachusetts pharmaceutical company Indevus Pharmaceuticals Inc. slightly reduced HIV infection rates among its trial subjects, where approximately 3,100 women from four different countries participated. Scientists discovered a 30% lower rate of infection among women who used the Indevus-produced gel, however it is important to note that this difference is not statistically significant and that the results could have occurred by change or been the result of other contributing factors. The study has been expanded to include more women from more countries. For more information on this key development in combating HIV/AIDS, please click here.

In important domestic news, a panel of federal judges found that the overcrowding of state prisons violates the inmates' right to adequate health care. State prisons are currently operating at twice their intended capacity and measures to reduce the amount of new prisoners being compelled are being explored so that state prisons would not have to release large numbers of prisoners at once. This decision by the judges is significant as the United States currently imprisons the largest percent of its population than any other country in the world (click here). Land of the free, right? For more information about the judges' decision, please click here.

And yet another instance after the BART subway shooting where California police have shot an innocent person. Daniel Balandran was shot and killed by police gunfire in a shootout at a Papa John's Pizza in Chino, California. Police say Balandran was caught in the crossfire; his lawyer states that he was targeted. For more information, please click here.

Finally, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates annouced a review of the ban on photographing fallen soldiers' coffins, a ban that he himself asked for a few years ago. For more information, please click here.

The Coming Shitstorm in Afghanistan

"There is no magic formula in Afghanistan. There is no Dayton agreement in Afghanistan. It's going to be a long difficult struggle."   ~Richard Holbrooke, special envoy for Afghanistan/Pakistan

Yes, the road forward in Afghanistan looks to be long and bumpy, with several articles of bad news in the past ten days. First off,

POPPIES!

The Wall Street Journal speculates that the Obama Administration will battle poppy production in Afghanistan, likely bringing in Iran, which has one of the highest rates of opium addiction in the world. That's good news but a tough task: The Taliban fund themselves through drugs, but agents of the Karzai government also skim a little off the top. The governors of "the two prime poppy provinces" are close to Karzai: Kandahar's head is Hamid's brother Ahmed. Helmand's was caught with nine tons of opium and has not yet been punished.

Meanwhile, the fledgling democracy faces its first

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!

Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission has decided to postpone the presidential election till August 20 in order to register more candidates, set up voting equipment, and instill order. The problem? Afghanistan's Constitution mandates that Karzai's term end on May 22, and that elections should be held 30 to 60 days beforehand. Opponents in Parliament have threatened to stop recognizing Karzai's legitimacy after May 22.

But the most serious problem is:

LOGISTICS!

The Taliban destroy a bridge along a crucial NATO supply route and torch ten supply trucks. The Kyrgyz president says American troops can no longer use the Manas supply base inside his country. Juan Cole puts it all together and says Obama might put the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan on hold.

Personally, I'm skeptical. Obama may be postponing the Afghanistan surge, but the reasons are probably more strategic than logistic. NATO does not seem to be too flustered by the disruption, having a 60-day supply of essentials in Afghan bases. Cole goes through various supply route options and considers routes by air. Why can't we fly supplies in via Pakistan? Cole gives no answer. Better question: If the land routes are so treacherous, why weren't we flying them in before?

Also worrying is that the Kyrgyz president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, announced the Manas decision in Moscow, after Russia promised $2 billion in credit and aid to Kyrgyzstan. Coincidence? Or does Russia feel threatened by the United States' involvement in Central Asia (and Eastern Europe)? Just like with Iran, the U.S. must work with Russia for their help in Afghanistan.

Today's meeting between the United States' and Russia's seconds-in-command (necks of state?), VP Joe Biden and Deputy PM Sergei Ivanov, was a positive step. The U.S. seems to be backpedaling on expanding NATO, which is good: Would the U.S. really want to go to war to defend Georgia? But America's insistence on a missile defense shield in Central Europe is mindboggling. I understand the possible threat from Iranian ICBMs, but shouldn't we wait until the technology has been proven and the threat is more imminent before we ruffle the Kremlin's feathers?

The Problem with Bagram

"The Obama Administration is inheriting not so much a shrinking Guantánamo as an expanding Bagram."     ~Tina Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network

Bagram Air Force Base lies 40 miles north of Kabul, Afghanistan. It currently holds 670 detainees, more than 2.5 times the amount currently at Guantánamo Bay. And these detainees are being held without a trial, without any charges, and without an end.

The Bush Justice Department, in response to human rights groups bringing the case to the Federal District Court, said this in a filing for the court:

Federal courts should not thrust themselves into the extraordinary role of reviewing the military's conduct of active hostilities overseas, second-guessing the military's determination as to which captured aliens as part of such hostilities should be detained, and in practical effect, superintending the Executive's conduct in waging a war...

Given the ongoing war, there is every reason to believe that our military mission in Afghanistan would be compromised if the writ [of habeas corpus] is extended to Bagram. To provide alien enemy combatants detained in a theater of war the privilege of access to our civil courts is unthinkable both legally and practically.

Maybe the Bagram detainees don't legally have access to civilian courts, but the military mission in Afghanistan would hardly be compromised by providing them basic rights. We cannot win the "war on terror" by abandoning our democratic principles. Imagine the fear and anger we would be instilling into the very "hearts and minds" that we are supposed to be winning if we could just disappear innocent people in such an Orwellian fashion.

We must try to improve the lives, the economies, and the governments of the Middle East if we are to prevent the root causes of terrorism. We should either charge or release the detainees. Those who are charged should be tried in local courts. If there is a problem with the local courts, we should attempt to improve them or try them in military courts, preferably both.

And now, I leave you with a quote:

"Sometimes a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. Nevertheless, it has the upper hand."     ~Aharon Barak, former President of the Israeli Supreme Court

Musharraf Resigns

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf resigned earlier today, saying that he would put the nation ahead of "personal bravado." Muhammad Mian Soomro, the president of the Senate, became the acting president. The move is mostly good news for Pakistan. In the long term, home-grown reform and true democracy will probably lead to a more stable Middle East. In the short term, Parliament can now focus on a poor economy and insurgents in the tribal, border areas, instead of their conflict with Musharraf.

However, the ruling coalition in Parliament may splinter without the glue of opposition to Musharraf holding it together. An amalgamation of Parliament and the four regional assemblies must decide within the next 30 days who should replace Musharraf. Asif Ali Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Benazir Bhutto's widower, seems to want the post, but he is opposed by the head of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, Nawaz Sharif. Sharif may agree to Zardari's appointment if the president is stripped of the powers to dissolve Parliament and choose the army chief.

Sharif and Zardari also disagree on judicial appointees. Sharif wants 57 supreme and high court justices removed by Musharraf to be reinstalled to their posts. Zardari wants those appointed in the interim to maintain their posts.

Musharraf's resignation has received mixed reactions internationally. The US offered faint praise, with spokesman Gordon Johndroe saying, "President Bush appreciates President Musharraf's efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting al-Qaeda and extremist groups." The Afghans believe the move will allow Pakistan to crack down harder on militants and improve democracy in both countries.

India is more wary. New Delhi has learned how to deal with Musharraf and is worried about an apparent power vacuum. Indian officials are unsure who is running the show in Islamabad: "Is it Prime Minister Geelani, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari or General Kayani? We don't know."

War and or Peace?

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

~James Madison

A lot of people lately have been arguing that the United States is not (and should not be) engaged in a 'war on terror' and that the phrase itself is counterproductive. Three arguments for ditching the 'war on terror' mindset:

1. The Semantic Argument: Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, H.W. Bush to Panama, Reagan to Grenada, yet these engagements were never really considered to be wars by the public. Why? Because unlike World War II, the general public wasn't asked to make sacrifices, there was no draft, and the casus belli was not a grave, existential threat. (The threats of communism and terrorism have largely been overblown. Al-Qaeda and other likeminded terrorists "are fighting modernity itself." They will continue to be a small group, and they will never attain their goal of a re-established caliphate.)
2. The Constitutional Argument: Everything changes in a period of active war. Murder becomes legal. The executive is allowed to assume expansive powers. But because the threat of terrorism can never be completely eliminated, a war on terror would never end, and the powers the president assumes would be permanent.
3. The Pragmatic Argument: Restraint is a valuable asset in counterterrorism. Overreaction has largely fueled terrorist movements. Terrorism has been reduced almost everywhere, but two noticeable exceptions are Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, we should fight terrorists. But it is just that, a fight, not a war. The 'war on terror' is counterproductive.

Headlines: 24 July 2008

• Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons: What? You don't like that you lost your right to bear arms after being convicted of a felony? What about losing your right to vote? You don't care? Hmm, lemme think...NO.
• Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?: POPPIES! The Taliban has been using the opium/heroin trade to finance their insurgency, but President Hamid Karzai has avoided eradicating poppies in the south for his own short-term political gains.
• Turkey makes 'coup plot' arrests: Worrying.
• Congress Revisits Military's Policy on Gays: 75% of Americans think gays should be able to serve openly in the military.
• How Sudan Was Brought to Court: Sudanese leaders are being charged with genocide after three years of diplomatic filibustering.
• Iraqi teams banned from Beijing Olympic games for accusations of political interference.
• Poll: Latinos favor Obama by big margin: "'Hispanics seem to have seamlessly shifted from Clinton to Obama,' said Susan Minushkin."

Headlines: 26-29 June 2008

• 6/26: Afghans See Pakistani Role in Karzai Plot: Members of Pakistan's intelligence service seem to have played a role in the attempted assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
• 6/27: Feds raid Blackwater's armory in firearms probe: Everybody's least favorite military contractor gets a visit from ATF.
• 6/28: Oil Hits New High as Dow Flirts with Bear Territory: Amid high oil prices and mortgage worries, the Dow entered then retreated from bear territory (defined as less than 80% of the value of its all-time peak) on Friday.
• 6/29: Hersh: U.S. escalating covert ops against Iran: Operations originally intended to investigate Iran's nuclear development and destabilize hard-line elements of the regime "have now been significantly expanded."

The Power of YouTube & the Incompetence of the Powerful

"If these [barracks] were in any city in America and were called apartments or dormitories, they'd be condemned."

First there was Walter Reed, then KBR's unclean water. More disturbing news documented by a soldier's father disgusted by the barracks in which his son had to live at Fort Bragg, NC, after a 15-month tour of duty in Afghanistan:

The Army's response? They didn't expect the soldiers back for three more weeks, and they're refusing to pay for private housing in the meantime. At least this is getting some attention and seems to be accelerating the repair process.

For more.

Headlines: 27 April 2008

• Oil refinery strikers hold rally
  

  A strike forces BP to close a pipeline that supplies Britain with 30% of its oil. Gas shortages have started to affect Scotland, ironically not because there isn't enough oil, but because people fearing a gas shortage are stocking up.
  

• Clinton Challenges Obama to Debate
  

  Clinton wants a moderator-less, Lincoln-Douglas-style debate. Nobody's told her that Douglas was the experience candidate.
  

• Bush pokes fun at his successors
  

  I'd tell him not to quit his day job, but he hasn't done so well at that either.
  

• Karzai unhurt after parade attack
  

  At least four dead and nine injured after Taliban militants fire into the grandstand.

Were You Aware?

Radical Islam Awareness Week was last week. Apparently it comes earlier every year. In an opinion piece in the Michigan Daily, the "Young Americans for Freedom" write:

National Islam Awareness Week is a way to educate students about the genocidal agendas of the global jihadists and the fact that these radical ideas are far more mainstream in the Muslim world today than most Americans are willing to believe. It is also to remind students not to forget about Sept. 11, to remember what our troops are fighting for: Our freedom, the same freedom that allows you to learn at this university without the fear of attack because of who you are.

Our group, the Young Americans for Freedom, is expecting and has had protests against our views. However, we are familiar with the way the Left wages its political wars on conservative students. If someone happens to disagree with its position on racial issues - if one believes, for example, that government-enforced racial preferences are misguided or immoral - the Left will denounce that person as a "racist." The Left's only logic is emotional, and the character of that emotion is hatred - hatred for those who want to raise awareness of the threats we face from radical Islam. This hatred has only one purpose: to silence those who oppose the jihad.

We see members of our generation ready to put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. We know that this war is being waged at home as well, and we will not let our brothers and sisters in uniform shoulder the burden alone.

First of all, nobody has forgotten September 11 and nobody ever will. People will remember where they were when they first found out about the attacks, much like the MLK or JFK assassinations or Pearl Harbor. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: What people did forget was the shock and the fear that was so easily taken advantage of in order to begin an unnecessary war and expand the reach of the Executive Branch. But apparently trying to ignore any feelings of terror to ponder reasonable solutions to the problem is "emotional logic," and opposing Bush's decisions to invade Iraq and to erode our civil liberties is supporting jihad.

And I'm sorry if the remarks David Horowitz made while visiting Michigan struck me as racist. His insistence that "the Muslim Students' Association is not an ethnic group. It is not a religious group. It is not a cultural group. It is a political organization created by the Muslim brotherhood," and use of the word 'Islamofascism' paints all Muslims as, if not bona fide terrorists, part of a community that unanimously and passionately hates the United States and all things Western. Don't believe that 'Islamofascism' is offensive to Muslims? What if I call Hitler, Mussolini and Franco 'Christo-fascists'? "But they weren't real Christians," you might say. The same argument can be made for Muslims, who, despite what Horowitz thinks, do not universally hate the U.S. This line of thought is particularly damning because victory over the terrorists ultimately depends on supporting moderate Muslims, to which the Sunni Awakening Councils' practical removal of al-Qaeda in Iraq can attest.

The letter to the editor from Aaron Bailey, an Afghanistan veteran and B-school student, which appeared in Monday's Daily, is so good that I have to share it with you in its entirety:

I read Wednesday's viewpoint by the University's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom with both surprise and disgust (The war at home, 04/09/2008). The one clear idea that resonated throughout the viewpoint was YAF's gung-ho, pro-war, chicken-hawk agenda and its contempt for the soldiers who are actually fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While YAF used the typical neo-conservative tactics of mentioning the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (which our own government has determined had no links to Iraq), discussing the suppression of minority rights (although the Bush administration continues to support the Saudi Royal Family's despotic regime) and continually using words like "freedom" to describe its agenda, this group did not speak for me as a veteran.

War, unfortunately, is a complex and occasionally necessary way to confront the greed, corruption and evil in our world. But chastising an entire region by calling mainstream Middle Easterners "jihadists," many of whom I served with, only serves to unnecessarily enflame the disaffected population I worked to assist. If YAF really wants to help our country, I encourage its members to visit www.goarmy.com and join the "brothers and sisters" the group claims to support. In lieu of that, perhaps YAF will advocate deploying troops with proper equipment, a clear mission and veteran's benefits when they return from war, something the group's fellow neo-cons forgot.

Make no mistake, the people who attacked us were, and still are, in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But for reasons unclear to me, my commander-in-chief has decided to ignore these threats. YAF's members continue to cover for our incompetent leaders, who place America's military at risk to further their own self-interests, all the while advocating others to fight and die in their places.

Also: Were you aware that "[i]f the President were the longest recorded flight by chicken, he would be thirteen seconds?" (Stewart 36)

Another Obama Speech

I'm so glad J-Mad covered Barack Obama's speech on race in America because the one he delivered today about Iraq in Fayetteville, North Carolina, caught my eye. Some excerpts:

If you believe we are fighting the right war, then the problems we face are purely tactical in nature. That is what Senator McCain wants to discuss – tactics. What he and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That's why this Administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Senator John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Senator McCain can argue – as he did last year – that we couldn't leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can't leave Iraq because violence is down.

When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer...

The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan's border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or bomb Pakistan...It is precisely this kind of political point-scoring that has opened up the security gap in this country. We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually goes. What we need in our next Commander in Chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3AM phone calls. What we need is a pragmatic strategy that focuses on fighting our real enemies, rebuilding alliances, and renewing our engagement with the world's people.

Amen.

TIME's Joe Klein reminds us, among other things, that, while presiding over the division and reconstruction of the post-World War I Ottoman Empire, Winston Churchill wrote to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, "We are paying 8 millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano."

The transcript of Obama's speech can be found here.

Fortunate Son

The Drudge Report today broke the news that British Royal Prince Harry has been on the front lines in Afghanistan since December (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashph.htm). I say, right-o, chum!

I think this is fantastic. Of course, there's the possibility that publicizing this makes bonnie Prince Harry a target for the Taliban, and the Royal Family was right to keep it under wraps for as long as they did. But it's fantastic that he's right in there with honest-to-God soldiers, doing
honest-to-God fighting (reportedly). It's a lot more than the Bush twins can say, along with most of the sons and daughters of our Congressional officials and presidential candidates.

Granted, according to the article, he's only on a three-month tour, but given the fact that the British Regular Forces (including the Army, the Naval Service, and the RAF) have 20,000 fewer enlisted men and women than they did five years ago, perhaps he'll serve more (see http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tsp1/gender.html). We'll have to keep an eye on what the Royal Family and British government have to say about that.

Whether you disagree with the greater War on Terror or not, I think most would say having Prince Harry, who's third in line for the crown, is a great morale boost and gives a little more integrity and credibility to the British war effort. Rather than say a Royal life is worth more than that of a regular Tommy in the trenches, Prince Harry is sending a message that he feels no more important than any one else his government sent to fight. It gives the phrase, "a government of laws, not of men," a greater ring of truth in the UK. Could this be a new trend? That would be a fantastic turnaround from the days of Vietnam and Creedence Clearwater Revival protest songs. But it will be a long time before we get there.