Jena and Iraq

So the general allegations of Jena are here. As it is, 6 black high schoolers are being charged with murder because some white high schooler got beat up enough to have a mild concussion and some reoccurring headaches a few weeks later. This is after white kids hung some nooses above a tree when some black kids didn't stay in their place, and a massive escalation of tension and conflicts in the following months.
The real question seems to be "what happened the night of the alleged kicking?" Was the Kickee actually knocked out, viciously stomped, or did he just lose a schoolyard fight (which included a few kicks to the gut, but it's just an asskickin, not deadly assault. I mean, does this kid just need to suck it up, or was this serious?
The only complaint since the attack, after healing up, is recurrent headaches (there was a swollen eye and a bit of a concussion). With that level of injury, that the extent of the harm (when 6 humans, in an attack, could clearly do so much more if they wanted to kill or maim someone) the charge is clearly excessive.
That is excessive, and the individuals should be punished. Suspensions, community service, and participation in public discussions on respecting human rights and dignity (including not whaling on people to give then concussions, unless sanctioned by the Leviathan (strange how Hobbsean our society has become lately, with all authority ceded to the executive in the name of protection).).
Jena is almost a twisted metaphor for Iraq. There is a sectarian dispute, the local gov. just favors its own sect, past murderous violence is referenced, and one side starts taking matters into its own hands. Because they believe they are entitled to have... well, that's where the analogy dies. One is just high school, with some kid who got beat on a bit, the other is geopolitical chaos.
I am from the south, and while the executive and city council branch of that town were just pouring gas on a smoldering fire, it's not representative of the area. Hopefully, it will be a lesson to us all in the need to respect the freedom and dignity of our fellow man, and if we follow that precept (a value truly honored by our founding fathers), if we remember that we must live free or die defending individual liberty, we will continue to prosper as a people. I only hope the recent misconduct, both overseas and by corrupt and tyrannical government entities can cease.

Opiate of the Masses?

Some Greek guy in a dress once said that the unexamined life is not worth living. I would tend to agree. But I like to use general reason, experience and empiricism to figure things out. Others prefer to put their stock in belief, in faith, in a "movement." Both lefties and righties can be guilty of this, both nanny-staters and libertarians.

There is a debate going on right now over at Sully's blog, with a discourse between an atheist, Sam Harris, who feels religion isn't so good and the practicing Catholic (who subscribes to the "theology of doubt"). In the linked post, he quotes Harris on the bible and koran, who stated:

So why not take these books less seriously still? Why not admit that they
are just books, written by fallible human beings like ourselves?

A reader responds to this attack on his favorite holy book (who knows which one) and states:

Religious books are not "just" books. Rather they are books that try to guide
human beings, and their conduct, through the mystery that is human life.
And when I say "mystery" I don't mean it in the sense of "Wow, that's
cool!" I mean it in the sense that we don't know where we came from, or
where we are going, or how, on the one hand, we can have a profound sense of
self, but, then, on the other hand, must live with the unease that our
entire sense of self - without religion - will somehow some day cease to
exist. (emphasis mine)

So if you truly believe that there is an afterlife, you get to toss off your angst. Nothing about the truth behind religion, more of "it's like prozac for me. I'm not as worried about what happens when I die when I turn my brain off and blindly believe in fairy tales."

The commenter further states:

Religion, and religious books are designed to help us with these problems of human existence. They are designed to show us - based on very old traditions - about the proper courses of conduct to lead one to the eventual pride in having lived to the full and to the good the one life that one was granted. They make us glad to be alive... Other books do not help. Even philosophers are of little use for these areas of life, and most will gladly acknowledge it. Perhaps some people don't need religion. But most of us do, even if our religious devotions are tinged with more or less worldly skepticism... For reasons we cannot put into words, we feel at times - after a Beethoven quartet or a Shakespeare play - that we have been touched by something so special, that it could not be the mere product of "just some guy." (my emphasis)

It's almost tough to know where to begin with this guy. I think the Bible is one of the best records we have of the brutality and barbarism of early man, of our tribal life. Constant warfare, slaughter, sacrifice to gods and idols, fire and brimstone, sinners in the hands of an angry god that brings fires and floods and earthquakes and plagues. That is the proper course of conduct? It's all about the smiting.

Listen, one of the greatest problems of the Islamic world is this constant yearning for the time of the Prophet, to go back to the 700s, because of the belief that everything was pure and just then, and it has been nothing but a corruption of Islam since that moment. Instead of looking ahead, they look back. There can be no progress, there can only be an eternal striving to return to the life of a warring desert and trading people, for that is the way of Mohamed and he is the purest man to ever live.

Perhaps if they did read these other books, books that the clown quoted above thinks are useless, then they would have a greater understanding of the human spirit. The great works of Hemingway, the poetry of Tennyson, the words of Bellow, the frenzy of Roth, the wise eye of Naipaul, all these books and more help man deal with the cruelties of existence, to persevere through this vale of tears. And they all help deal with the conundrum of human existence. Even the Bible can help, but the fact it is placed on a pedestal, that it's fantasies should hold mystical weight and the other books are blasphemous, this is a pernicious mindset that should be rejected. Sentiments like those quoted above lead to death sentences on the heads of writers. Just ask Salman Rushdie. And ask him if one of his masterpieces was inspired by God or though his own hard work.

We should not need some crutch to find peace of mind. We should not have to rely on thoughts of the afterlife and prayer to find comfort. We must come to terms with the fact of our mortality, and live our lives in recognition of this eventuality.

A man can spend his day on his knees in prayer, a supplicant to a silent god. He can hope that these actions will show his piety and ensure his place in the great beyond. Or, he can spend his days in good works, trying to leave the world better than he found it, to leave a legacy of accomplishment that will give him solace on his deathbed. I don't know which of these two men is right. But the one who gets off his knees is the better man in my book.

Obama the Anti-Everything?

Obama is truly the golden boy of America at this moment. It really does prove what they say, that the longer you are in Washington and the longer your record, the more mistakes made on the record your enemies can hang around your head.

From Columnist Joe Sorban ( h/t Andrew Sullivan, who called Joe a conservative columnist, but in my first read seemed just common sense instead of ideological)

His greatest strength vis-à-vis Hillary is that he is even more different from
Bush than she is, which makes him more electable than she is. Bush has been a
worse calamity for the country than 9/11 itself. The 2008 election, like this
year’s, will be a repudiation of the worst president, by far, in most Americans’
memory.

Right now things are going almost too perfectly Obama’s way. Time will
of course force him to make definite and therefore costly choices, even if some
unforeseeable disaster doesn’t befall him. Or maybe — cruel fate! — he’ll turn
himself into a joke. A single televised gaffe could do it!

I think on the Dem side, he is the anti-Hillary. He's "fresh," in the sense that most dems only first heard him at the 04 convention. And he is quick on his feet verbally, and "uses his tounge prettier than a 20 dollar whore." Which makes him the anti-Bush in at least one way. Damn it would be good to have a president who doesn't mangle the English language unless he is reading from a teleprompter.

The thing about Obama is, he has enough goodwill and dexterity that a televised gaffe can't do him in. He's not stiff necked about things, so if he does something goofy, he will sheepishly apologize and America will love him even more. After all, he's the skinny kid with the funny name who used to knock back lines of blow and smoke weed, but still ended up in the plum (and intellectually demanding) position of editor of the Harvard Law Review. As opposed to Bush and his "gentleman's C's. He still smokes cigarettes, but states that it's a filthy habit. He already knows he's is flawed, as are we all. Once you take that position, you can't get trapped by some silly gaffe.

It's far too early to say that it's his to lose. But the race for the presidency is certainly his to win.

Things are Going to Take Some Time

We've had six years where the Republican Congress put party over patriotism and respect for the Constitution. People who voiced dissent were branded as traitors, "blame America-firsters" (as if a handful of wealthy and corrupt Republican political elites were the avatars of America), and dirty hippies who couldn't be trusted in a time of war and "moral seriousness." And a stenographic media that let them get away with it. Despite that, Bush only got 51% in '04.

I think the Democrats need a good two to three months of hearings, buttressed by the honest Republicans who don't kowtow to King Bush (like Hagel) to really expose the malfeasance. It will take some time to dig up the dirt after 6 years of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil done by any Republican, especially those named Bush. Then it will take a few more months for all this information to sink into the reporting of the media, then a few more to fully sink into the populace. I predict that by November of 2007, the President will lose more support and there will be much stronger calls for impeachment. However, it will be so close to another election, that he will just be censured and then kept under a tight leash by Congress.

Plus it will take some time for the Dems to really get their bearings and understand their constitutional powers yet. Obama used to be a part time law prof. on constitutional law. Perhaps he can lead the way... But why would he want to make those types of speeches and demands on the floor of the Senate when he's got a potential election to think about? Hmm....

P.S.: Long time no post. What are you going to do, I suppose?

Fear is the Bush Foundation

What with the holy days approaching, I was browsing through some old chestnuts and noted this compelling piece from Mr. Russell. To make it more entertaining, mentally change every mention of Religion to Bush and/or his administration.

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

What We Must Do

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

I think the saddest thing about the Bush era (aside from the mangled and broken bodies and minds) is that the constant fearmongering is destructive to our tradition as a proud and free people, as he encourages us to quake in fear of the "bad men" who "hate our freedom." Al Queda's leadership are men. They are actually fairly rational (just their premise that they must fight a war against America to defend the purity of their faith leads to violent and destructive choices). They wanted a lesser American influence in the mid-east, especially in Saudi Arabia. They think the Saudi kings are corrupt, and want a more strict, fundamentalist control over Mecca. And yes, they operate out of caves and safe houses. This aint the Warsaw pact with thousands of tanks, planes, and nukes. In Iraq, the forces can't defeat the US conventionally except in an ambush at the lowest level of foot patrol; they can't take a US base, they can't lay siege to our forces. But you can't stop them from suicide bombing or sniping.

We need a fearless outlook and free intelligence to discern the way out, and we need to put the Iraqis in the forefront in finding the solutions. Because once we leave (and we will, even if not until a new President is in charge), the Iraqis will have to enforce the new order.

Good Food for thought, even if my rambling Iraq musings don't have much to do with Russell's dictums.

Sadly, Bush is actually the Decider

We had an ISG. There have been innumerable pundit plans, exit strategies, new plans for fortifications, troop rotations, and governmental permutations. But it matters not whose plan is best, for Bush is the man who outranks the rest.
The Decider continues to decide. And no matter how many ponys are put forth, we are screwed untill he and Cheney are gone from office.
However that eventually happens.

But don't trust me. Listen to Atrios.

Fresh Hate in Iraq Creates Conflict, Not Ancient Grudges

Too many out there pontificate on the nature of 1,000 year ancient grudges, and asserrt a sort of hoplessness in stopping bloodshed in Iraq. They conclude that this sort of sectarian conflict is wired into the Arab DNA, so the US is powerless.

But just as all politics are local, so are greivances. Fueds exist because of their intenesly personal nature, because of what has happened in this generation, this year, this month. The people of Iraq lived under a cuel totalitarian dictatorship, wich also exploited racial (Kurd v. Arab) and religious (Sunni v. Shia) differences, so that the state, the bureacracy, favored Sunni Arabs.

Think of all the petty tyrannies that the burecrats of Iraq could inflict on the powerless, the many bribes demanded, the seizures of property, the abuses of the police, the torture inflicted by Saddam's internal intelligence agencies. And this is all before the American invasion. Once we toppled Saddam and disbanded the army and police, there were scores to settle. There were dead brothers, raped sisters, tortured parents to avenge. They did not thirst for payback because of some 1,400 year old schism regarding religious dogma, but for what happened to them personnally, what happened to their friends, family, and loved ones.

Fued begets fued. Now, approaching four years of war and fueds, there are few who do not have a dead or injured relative. There are those who hate the Sunni, the Shia, the police, the military, a tribal chief, a new burecrat, the American Army, or foreign terrorists. And Iraq is awash in guns and old Iraqi army munitions. There is more than enough fresh blood to keep these fueds going.

We stood by as the beast of revenge was set loose in Iraq. It had been chained by Saddam to some extent (in those days it was only the beast of Saddam that plagued the land), but we let it escape. Now it has grown strong. And hungry. And it must be fed. At this point, America's goal should be to ensure it feeds on Americans as little as possible.

The Denunciations of Bush Begin

We know a politician is often a whore for money, but a politician is always a whore for votes. After all, as a wise man once said, "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." So if Bush thinks things are bad now, wait till the rest of the war party cheerleaders start dwelling on that election in 08 and the constant dwindling of support for the war and a presidential approval level in the 20s (if that high by the big November). It's already begun...

Senator Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, a Bush rubber-stamp man 'till this point, gives a speech CNN headlines as "GOP senator criticizes Iraq war in emotional speech." Money quote: "[I'm at] the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day.That is absurd...It may even be criminal."

Like rats leaving the sinking ship. While sharks are circling. Some of the rats think they can make it out alive if they pretend to be a shark, especially if the sharks are busy attacking the big, meaty target in the middle.

Is this how the road to impeach begins? It reminds me of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and his comments on another war... "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." Sounds like the ISG. As for the American people, Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

The power of an angry and determined electorate can lead to some important changes in this country. And those that pander or get led by the polls will jump on the bandwagon. Republicans in the House and Senate are going to face the fact that they can toss Bush under the bus and give the Dems a veto proof power to shake things up or they'll go down with the ship. All those fellas teetering in the low 50s are doing the math and reading what's on the wall. If they want to listen? Only time will tell. But the ground is shifting and the tide is turned. Let's see how big this wave gets before it breaks.

The Downward Spiral: Bush Stayin' the Course

After everything that's happened since the fall of Baghdad, since Bremer and Bush's CPA in Iraq disbanded the Army and presided over the dismantaling of order and a state monopoly over violence, and the ensuing grinding, bloody decline, Bush still doesn't get it. He still actually believes he's winning and that he will be vindicated by History as some great man, too "enlightened" for his time. The greatest spinner, the man of stock talking points, who's taken America to it's lowest stature in foreign policy in decades, well... on his desk the buck never stops. (see dmsilev's diary for more). Why else is loyalty so built into the system? In the upper echelons of the Bush court, le e'stat, c'est Bush. The state must be defended and protected against all slanders, and can never be wrong, lest the people ask too many questions. And even after the ISG came out, the whole edifice still exists in denial. Maybe Bob "we're not winning" Gates, our new Sec Def, can change some things. Bush is still spouting the same garbage, though. Take a look.

The most striking demonstration that Bush remains totally in denial was his choice of language to respond to the two British reporters. To Nick Robinson, he says "it's bad in Iraq. Does that help?" But the remainder of his long response never says things are going bad, or are regressing, or falling apart. Instead, he just says that it is "tough." Which is the same as saying it's hard (like "it's a hard job being the president"). But how do you deal with toughness? By preservering, by exerting sufficent "will." You don't make massive course corrections because things are falling apart. He says "Make no mistake, I understand how tough it is, sir." But he fails to acknowlege how thoroughly awfully it is and how low its fallen since the bombing of the golden dome mosque.

In response to Neely asking about a change of stragegy, Bush says "I t hought we would succeed quicker than we did, and I am disappointed by the pace of success." It is a denial that Iraq is even failing. Instead, it says that the current stratgey is succeeding, but progress should be faster. As if everything will be fine in Iraq if we stay the course for 10 years, while the original plan called for success in 5 (and we're gettin close to 4 right now).

He should be disappointed by the total absence of success and the rapidly escalating pace of failure. But he still believes that his way leads to "victory" (whatever that is), and that everything would be fine if people accepted his gospel instead of asking why things are so bad. He sees the pace of success as slow but steady, of things getting better, instead of the spreading anarchy that's increased constantly since the fall of Baghdad.

Fun Robert Gates factoid: He twice turned down an offer to work for George Bush the younger (showing remarkable good judgment). The first was when he turned down the offer to head Homeland Security to remain at a (gasp) University. Tom Ridge got to preside over that burecratic horror (color code man), and now its the walking corpse Chertoff (heckuva job). He next declined the new Director of National Intelligence post, and instead John "intel czar" Negroponte took up the job. Gates, now Dean, explained his choice in an email to the students by saying he "had nothing to look forward to in D.C. and plenty to look forward to at A&M." I wonder, has he even talked with Bush about Iraq?

Fun Fact #2 (also from wikipedia): In January 2004, Gates co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force on U.S. relations towards Iran. Among the task force's primary recommendation was to directly engage Iran on a diplomatic level regarding Iranian nuclear technology. Key points included a negotiated position that would allow Iran to develop its nuclear program in exchange for a commitment from Iran to use the program only for peaceful means.

Poor man. I'll be impressed if he lasts a few months in the bizzaro politicized world that is the Bush White House.

The Right and the Intelligent debate the Baker Commission

Well, the Baker Commission came out with their report, and the land has been abuzz. Naturally, there's no idea that hasn't actually been discussed already, so there's nothing new. But there the Baker Boys (and one girl) did advocate diplomacy, active intervention to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute, milestones in Iraq, and eventual withdrawl. It recognized that despite the right's attempt to always demonize our foreign "enemies" as implacable madmen and little Hitler's in training, they are all actually fairly rational states with wants and needs like everyone else, and it is possible to negotiate.

Naturally, such an assesment causes the right-wing ideologues to freak out about the empending enslavement of the world if we don't show enough "will" by staying in Iraq until the Earth is destroyed by the sun.

From Hugh Hewitt:

Like I told a reporter buddy of mine: War sucks but a world run by
Islamofacists sucks more.

And therein lies the fatal premise.

The problem with the future is that it is essentially unknowable. So we create logical premises to determine how to act. The opererative premise debated right now?
If we leave Iraq then X will happen. If we stay, Y will happen. If X is worse than Y, we stay, if not, we should go.

For most rational people, Y = more dead American soldiers, waseted funds, more anti-americanism, and more loss of prestige and foreign policy ineffectiveness. X usually means continued chaos and civil war in Iraq, with maybe a 25% chance that things will improve once the Iraqis realize it's up to them, a maybe 25% chance of a massive blood-bath and a regional conflict, and maybe 50% chance of years of grinding civil war, de-facto partitian, and an eventual uneasy peace like in Lebanon.

For the right-wingers, Y is the same but X (if we leave) = the entire world will be ruled by Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda! So yes, Y sucks, but X is worse than anything in the history of the world.

It's fair to say that the West has dominated the globe since at least the 1850s, once Britan beat down China in the Opium wars. It has generally stood for some form of capitalism in various guises. There was a challenge after WWII from the Communist Block, which dissolved at the start of the 1990s. All the great powers have now adopted this basic style of societal orentation(US, Britan, France, Germany, Japan, China, India, Russia, etc.), with varying degrees of government intervention and support in their economies. There are varying degrees of civil liberties in these countries, but a modern capitalist society requires at least a certain level of free discourse and movement to function properly, and so you are generally all-right as long as you don't criticize the state.

Al-Queda had support in one country: The Taliban dominated Afghanistan from about 1996 to 2001, and had no real commerce or conventional military power to speak of. Members of Al-Queda launched a terroist attack against the United States, and the Taliban government was toppled and scattered shortly thereafter. This 5 year period, in an incredibly impoverished nation that suffered through decades of civil war, was the extent of the actual political control of Al-Queda approved government.

But if we leave in Iraq, somehow Al-Queda will find a way to defeat the EU, Japan, China, India, all of North and South America, Russia, and everywhere else, and impose their strict, fundamentalist Islamic rule.

Could someone please explain how this is remotely possible? Does the Right actually believe this, or do they just say it because it's the only way they feel they can defend the indefensible?

The Weight of the War on our President

Been a long while since me last post. Bad blogger...

Anyway, in his first one on one interview since the election, Bush lets it be known how he preserves in the face of adversity to Brit Hume:

Bush: I had a bunch of our buddies from Texas up here this weekend, and they're
kind of -- they look at you, and go, man, how come you're still standing?
It's not so much the presidency on the shoals because of difficult decisions
I made; it's more, the weightiness of this thing must be impossible for
anybody to bear. And I tell them it's just not the case, that I'm inspired
by doing this job. . . .
"I also remind them, Brit, that Laura and I are sustained by the prayers of millions of people. That's hard for some to, you know, I guess, chew on."
Hume: "You sense that."
Bush: "Absolutely."
Hume: "I know they
tell you that, when you see them out on the hustings. But do you sense that?"
Bush: "I feel it."
Hume: "You
feel it."
Bush: "Yeah. Because the load is not heavy, I guess is the best way to describe it. Look, somebody said to me, prove it. I said you can't prove it. All I can tell you is I feel it. And it's a remarkable country when millions pray for me and Laura. So therefore I'm able to say to people, that this is a joyful experience, not a painful
experience. And yeah it's tough, but that's okay. It's tough times.

So, people pray for the president (something I recall everyday in Church, because its natural to want our head of state not to screw things up). And because people are praying for the office of the President, and for Bush himself, he isn't weighted down by all his mismanagement and incompetence. He doesn't feel bad for his mistakes, because someone's praying for him to be forgiven. See, all clean!

The problem with Bush's faith isn't the faith per se. There's nothing that makes religous people intrinsically bad leaders (and indeed history says otherwise). The problem is that the prayers and doctrine of forgiveness and assured assencion into heaven, which his faith tells him is a lock once he was born again, leads to a "what me, worry" attitude. So Iraq is failing badly? Well, people are praying for me, I know Jesus loves me, and I'm going to heaven, so relax. I'm bringng freedom to the Iraqis, which is just part of God's plan!

Maybe this is why Bush is so lazy. This is why he seems like he doesn't care. It's all in the hands of prayer and God to make sure things turn out right. Why, if all Americans prayed for victory in Iraq, especially publicly or in schools, then the insurgents would lay down their arms and we would have a big peace parade from Damascus to Tehran. That's why he's so obbsessed with spin and asserting "will" in the conflict. As long as we believe, it will all turn out all right. (Green lantern theory of war, h/t Yglesias)

Dammnit, man, when things are going to hell in a handbasket and its your doing, it better damn well weigh on you. Every maimed and dead American soldier, every crippled Iraqi child ought to way on your shoulders and your mind, because you have roally screwed the pooch. But just like with Katrina, just like any Bush disaster, he just shrugs it off. Not a big deal. Not when folks are out there prayin, right?

I fear that Bush will go to his grave without any sense of shame for his role in the greatest US foreign policy debacle in the Middle East. Or for the fact that his entire foreign policy was generally a debacle. Or that he fulfilled the goals of Al-Queda in a far better way then it could have ever done so on its own. Two more years of this...I hope it won't get too much worse.

Your liberal media and the Democratic Leadership Election

The coverage of the leadership races in the House have been pretty pathetic all around. Instead of noting that the democrats are electing a leader, and there are two serious candidates for the position, it's all spun as some sort of vicious civil war, full of back-stabbing and betrayl. For the Republicans? There leadership race is some excercise in decisive and strong unity. Of course, all this spin takes little regard of reality (or sanity)

From today's NY Times:

The Republicans, selecting their leaders in less dramatic fashion than Democrats
picked theirs on Thursday, chose Mr. Boehner as minority leader over the
conservative Representative Mike Spence of Indiana by a vote of 168 to
27. A single vote was cast for Representative Joe Barton of
Texas. Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri was re-elected party whip by
137 to 57 over Representative John Shadegg of Arizona. (snip)

Cast in the minority role for the first time in 12 years, Republicans may
be taking solace in the battle that played out among House Democrats, who chose
Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland as their new majority leader on
Thursday, rejecting the choice of Ms. Pelosi, and straining the unity of the
new majority party. (emphasis mine). In an indication that
rank-and-file members would be willing to break from Ms. Pelosi, Democrats chose
Mr. Hoyer over Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania by a decisive vote of 149 to 86.

So the Democrats put two candidates out. One wins decisively with 149 votes. The Republicans put two candidates up. The relect an old leadership figure (who helped lead their party to defeat) with 168 votes. The Democratic representatives did what they came to Washington to do: vote their conscience. And the new leader won big. But it's painted as some ugly, bitter affair. Even though by all appearances there was nothing partisan or ugly about it and everyone is simply moving after taking care of this required business.

The Washington Post title? "Democrats Reject Murtha." The Press always pumps the negative about Dems. They then note that this election has exposed "a deep political divide even before the party takes control." Even thought this choice wasn't really about policy or ideology, just about which individual gets to hold the reins of power. And without citing any evidence, it disparages relations between Pelosi and Hoyer.

In a show of unity after the closed-door meeting in a House office building, she
and Hoyer smiled and embraced. But the two longtime rivals must now try to pick
up the pieces after a bitter intraparty fight and prepare for a new Congress in
January.

You know, it was an election campagin that lasted about three friggin' days. Murtha jumped in at the last minute after Hoyer already had the votes. Pelosi stood by her friend, but it didn't change anything (this aint no Tom Delay style leadership, there were no threats to drop the hammer). Nor should it have. And because the Democratic leadership let things play out fairly, they get crucified in the press.

The media loves message control (it boils things down to nice sound bites and talking points they understand). They hate the Democrats for not mandating a single, unified orthodoxy. They hate all the shades of grey, all the different opinions, and all the agendas that a truly representative, federal government brings. Because they are lazy bums who wouldn't know straight-forward and honets reporting if it slapped them in the face. Wankers.

[Update]: Please see the incomparable Mr. Greenwald, laying it out in a far more comprehensive and direct manner than my humble attempt.

Narcissists

The leading voices of the right generally think that they are the great wise ones, and pontificate with endless certainty on the issue du juor. There are so certain because when they go to look upon the world, the only gaze on a mirror. They only see themselves. Reassured that others will act pretty much like they will (if they are good people), they bloviate without hesitation or doubt.

Here is the latest, from Charlie Krauthammer, titled "It's the Iraqis' fault." Shorter version? We are wonderful and gave the gift of democracy to Iraq, but I was shocked to learn that they weren't prepared to radically alter their society at the insistence of the US military. Those ungrateful wretches! He starts:

We have given the Iraqis a republic, and they do not appear able to keep it. (snip)

I think we made several serious mistakes -- not shooting looters, not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 -- that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture. (snip)

I'm sure our invasion, disbanding of their army and police force, and forcing the entire elite out of the power structure and leaving them at the mercy of militias had nothing to do with it. I'm sure our only fault was not leaving cities in the south while attacking a popular Shite religious figure.

Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the "realists" imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the past several decades. But the problem here is Iraq's particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Hussein's totalitarianism.

Why, who could have ever predicted that? Oh wait. Everyone with a brain before the election. In cultures that have faced 30 years of chaos and violence, political power doesn't grow out of the ballot box. It comes from the barrel of the gun. They understand that. And if we are trying to force them to use the ballot box, they will use their guns when we aren't around to intimidate and assassinate. You can't push democracy out of the barrel of a gun. A people have to choose that for themselves. So quit faulting them for our incompetent occupation that let anarchy bloom, for bringing the whirlwind of violence into the heart of Baghdad.

Oh, STFU too.

The First Goal of Foreign Policy Should Be Peace

We have lived in security, across the oceans, and generally safe from foreign violence on our shore, for quite some time now (aside from 9-11). Considering the drubbing everyone else got in World War II, our States never really saw war (since Hawaii and Alaska were still territories). And our democracy and society has brought great wealth. So we have become very belligerent in recent years about trying to force our version of things down peoples throats, because deep down it is a pretty good basic system we had going (although things have been a bit broken down lately). So we forget that in most areas, some of which never really lived under democracy, and have been the worlds battlefields for hundreds of years, the people really just want a respite from violence. They want to live in peace.

We think of the first Iraq war as a spirited jaunt actoss the desert, an amazing tactical and strategic campaign. And it was, from our perspective. But to the people of Iraq, they took 100,000 casualties and had many critical pieces of infrastruture destroued. Then there was the Shia uprising, which we let Saddam crush (the Coalition, which included many Sunni leaders, weren't keen on lending a hand), and instability and war in the kurdish areas. Then crushing economic sanctions (with occasional surgical air strikes against military positions). Then another American invasion and a continuing occupation. Before all this was the Iran-Iraq war, a stupid futile and ugly thing that bled a generation out of each nation for 8 years. Iraq alone had 400,000 + casualties. So things haven't been too pretty there in the last 30 years or so.

Iraq and Iran aren't the only countries in the area that have a large number of veterans, of wars that didn't really go all that well either (which can leave some resentment in a nation). Turkey's been fighting an insurgency of their own for about 2o years. Lebanon? Hell, their last war was just a few months ago. There have been recent conflicts and strife in Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Gaza and the West Bank (Palestine?), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc. All with wars. All with much destruction and loss of life. Some have even lived for years now with a steady drumbeat of war and death in their communities.

So maybe what they are really looking for is peace. Let's just get everybody some damn peace so we can all relax and catch our breath and just try to work things out, instead of shooting for "regime change," or to "shake up the status quo." We are a bunch of democratic revolutionaries with the most powerful army in the world. The last time the world really say that kind of aggression was the French Revolution, after it was seized by Napolean. An acquiescent Republican Congress combined with Bush's imperial presidency (hopefully ending soon), has led our young, idealistic democratic soldiers into the sands of Iraq. It's no Waterloo, but it's still stirring up a lot of ill will and leading people to fearfully unite against us and scramble for ways to defend themselves. They'd prefer we didn't roll in guns blazing and pushing liberty, democracy, whiskey and sexy.

Foreign Policy has many branches, there are always many options on how to finesse a situation. The key is you got to sell what's buying. You'd think an industrious nation like us should recognize this. And the people in the mid-east are ready to buy peace. All the leaders would like some peace, maybe some more trade, and a solution to Israel. Hell, the Saudis have a proposal on the table right now that the other countries are behind, but Israel is being to damned stiff-necked about things (and going off half-cocked like that in Lebanon didn't help much either). So we need to get serious about bringing Peace to the middle east, not more war. Not destabilization. We have created a violent monster in Iraq, in the heart of the middle east. That's not exactly what they were hoping the new century would bring them in the year 2000. And then the second intifada began in September of 2000 when Sharon visited the Temple Mount and everything started falling apart. And since Clinton left, we've only made things worse.

So we need to focus on peace. Forget any of the other goals in mind (democracy, oil security, the neocon desire to show a strong "will," etc.). Make Peace the number one priority, and put some muscle into it, damnit. If the Bush administration put as much effort and face time into this as he did to his ill-conceived social security plan or the atrocious Medicare bill, then something positive could actually happen (although we'll probably have to wait for a new president). Hell, Bush ran away from the whole Palestinian situation from day one, because they viewed it as unsolvable, and so didn't want to look ineffectual by getting involved (always putting spin and perception as #1).

We need to let everyone know that all we want is peace (John Lennon foreign policy, we'll brand it, get a good Beatles soundtrack. Now that's some image management). And mean it. And work for it like its the most important thing in the world. Every trip around the world for Bush is just a photo op with an occasional lecture on freedom. But he never really talks about working for peace.

We prepare for war, so that we may live in peace. But Bush prepared for war in Iraq, got inspectors in and could have secured peace, but choose war. We need to bring peace instead. If our home is attacked, we will respond, like in Afghanistan. But aside from responding to direct attacks, we will focus all our attention to championing peace, to find a way for people to just put their guns and bombs down. And if everyone can just have 10 or 15 years without all this bloodshed, the world will be a much better place. Let's keep the violence we face just from fanatical terrorists, and lets cut off the terrorist recruiting flows by preventing dead children in the streets (especially if killed by US weapons). And if we are living in peace, we can all work together to prevent and stamp out terrorism. Instead of picking fights, let's give the people what they want. The democracy, whiskey, and sexy will come. Just give it time. As Milton Friedman said, “The free market is the only mechanism that has ever been discovered for achieving participatory democracy."

Schadenfreude

At least when you have a bunch of incompetent, unprincipled bunglers running the show they screw up in their personnal lives too, so we can at least take pleasure in their misfourtunes. They at least give us that.

There is Cheney shooting people in the face, Randy "the Duke-stir" Cunningham sobbing as led away to prison for corruption, Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum getting tagged with, well "santorum," Abramoff in looking both goofy and sinster in his fedora, and Mark "Caucus on Exploited Children" Foley chasing teen pages (and catching some after the big 18 too).

It leads to this natural conclusion, from America's Finest News Source:

Evangelical leader Ted Haggard, who stepped down last week after confessing that he purchased methamphetamines and various services from a male prostitute, revealed Wednesday that he was repeatedly molested by an unnamed Republican congressman in the late 1990s. "We would communicate on the Internet and then meet in his Washington office to, I thought, discuss faith-based initiatives," said Haggard in a tearful admission in which he asked for the forgiveness of God and his congregation. "Before long, he had progressed from praying alongside me to having me sit on his lap at his desk, and then to touching me in my bathing-suit area. I trusted the congressman, and he violated that trust." Authorities have not acted on Haggard's allegations, saying that Republicans are often accused of wrongdoings simply because so many of them lead secret gay or criminal lifestyles. (emphasis mine)

God Bless the Onion.

The Wild Tribal Areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan

I think there is a failure of many Americans to even conceptualize what type of dynamic we are dealing with in Afghanistan. The Arab jihadis are one thing, but the Pashtun fighters are an entirely different people. They are fighters and Islamic, yes. But they are not oil rich like the Arabs. They are not of the desert. They are mountain fighters. They have lived by the gun for a long time now. And they are not afraid of stiring up trouble in the neighborhood, before and after we showed up. Naturally, our President and press have never really tried to understand any of this, or the realities and motivations of life in the Hindu Kush.

Here's how a young Winston Churchill found the land in 1898 as a reporter covering the ends of the British Empire (compared with Bush, who never really left the country before becoming President and at the same phase in his life was just carousing in New Orleans with the 'Bama National Guard):

The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbor. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger.

Nor are these struggles conducted with the weapons which usually belong to the races of such development. To the ferocity of the Zulu are added the craft of the Redskin and the marksmanship of the Boer. The world is presented with that grim spectacle, "the strength of civilisation without its mercy." At a thousand yards the traveller falls wounded by the well-aimed bullet of a breech-loading rifle. His assailant, approaching, hacks him to death with the ferocity of a South-Sea Islander. The weapons of the nineteenth century are in the hands of the savages of the Stone Age.

Every influence, every motive, that provokes the spirit of murder among men, impels these mountaineers to deeds of treachery and violence. The strong aboriginal propensity to kill, inherit in all human beings, has in these valleys been preserved in unexampled strength and vigour. That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword -- the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men -- stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism. The love of plunder, always a characteristic of hill tribes, is fostered by the spectacle of opulence and luxury which, to their eyes, the cities and plains of the south display. A code of honour not less punctilious than that of old Spain, is supported by vendettas as implacable as those of Corsica.

In such a state of society, all property is held directly by main force. Every man is a soldier. Either he is the retainer of some khan -- the man-at-arms of some feudal baron as it were -- or he is a unit in the armed force of his village -- the burgher of mediaeval history.
The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War, (Churchill's first book)

Basically, like the Hatfields and McCoys (and the revenuers). You know, Bush has a bust of Churchill in his office. It is apparent that his speechwriters certainly favor the man. But does he have any understanding of the things Churchill saw in his formative years as a young man? Has he read "An Episode of Frontier War?" Somehow I don't think that was on his reading list in his little contest this summer. Good to know he did "read" Camus, though.

Their views about violence and attacks (and compare it to the current empty pundits advocating the need for more "will")

This state of continual tumult has produced a habit of mind which [reckons] little of injuries, holds life cheap and embarks on war with careless levity, and the tribesmen of the Afghan border afford the spectacle of a people, who fight without passion, and kill one another without loss of temper. Such a disposition, combined with an absolute lack of reverence for all forms of law and authority, and a complete assurance of equality, is the cause of their frequent quarrels with the British power. A trifle rouses their animosity. They make a sudden attack on some frontier post. They are repulsed. From their point of view the incident is closed. There has been a fair fight in which they have had the worst fortune. What puzzles them is that "the Sirkar" should regard so small an affair in a serious light. Thus the Mohmands cross the frontier and the action of Shabkadr is fought. They are surprised and aggrieved that the Government are not content with the victory, but must needs invade their territories, and impose punishment. Or again, the Mamunds, because a village has been burnt, assail the camp of the Second Brigade by night. It is a drawn game. They are astounded that the troops do not take it in good part.

They, when they fight among themselves, bear little malice, and the combatants not infrequently make friends over the corpses of their comrades or suspend operations for a festival or a horse race. At the end of the contest cordial relations are at once re-established. And yet so full of contradictions is their character, that all this is without prejudice to what has been written of their family vendettas and private blood feuds. Their system of ethics, which regards treachery and violence as virtues rather than vices, has produced a code of honour so strange and inconsistent, that it is incomprehensible to a logical mind. I have been told that if a white man could grasp it fully, and were to understand their mental impulses -- if he knew, when it was their honour to stand by him, and when it was their honour to betray him; when they were bound to protect and when to kill him--he might, by judging his times and opportunities, pass safely from one end of the mountains to the other. But a civilised European is as little able to accomplish this, as to appreciate the feelings of those strange creatures, which, when a drop of water is examined under a microscope, are revealed amiably gobbling each other up, and being themselves complacently devoured.

You cannot out "will" these people. Your presence is an invatation to fight. They don't understand why America isn't playing along. If we could just have a good firefight, then perhaps a truce party (which we will all break later, but nothing says we can't have some fun now), everything would be better.

Even some of the religious issues were the same back then (as with some preachers today, no matter what God):

Their superstition exposes them to the rapacity and tyranny of a numerous priesthood -- "Mullahs," "Sahibzadas," "Akhundzadas," "Fakirs," -- and a host of wandering Talib-ul-ilms, who correspond with the theological students in Turkey, and live free at the expense of the people.

Now its the Saudis, and the Taliban, but the underlying culture is the same. Prophetically, Churchill imagines this scenario, of a local tribesman who once fought with the British as a young man, telling tales around the fire in his village:

He will speak of their careless bravery and their strange sports; of the far-reaching power of the Government, that never forgets to send his pension regularly as the months pass by; and he may even predict to the listening circle the day when their valleys will be involved in the comprehensive grasp of that great machine, and judges, collectors and commissioners shall ride to sessions at Ambeyla, or value the land tax on the soil of Nawagai. Then the Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir holds to-day: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet. And the young men hearing these things will grip their Martinis, and pray to Allah, that one day He will bring some Sahib -- best prize of all -- across their line of sight at seven hundred yards so that, at least, they may strike a blow for insulted and threatened Islam. …

Their allegedly sudden "radicalism" is nothing more than the same stories told since the fall of the Mughal empire. Except now they load clips of blowing things up on the Jihadi YouTube.

Iraqi Kidnapping as a Microcosm

The recent mass kidnapping in Baghdad shows what Iraq has become. This is the fruit of our effforts. Sure, most of the people were released or freed in raids the next day. But what of those who weren't? This is the new society we have built in Iraq. And it is a terrible place to live. You can't spin around the violence, anarch, reduction in the delivery of water and electricity, and general shititude. The administration likes to talk about some democratic example. But after branding the former professionals criminals and driving them into the insurgency, we've helped create a society focused more on vendetta and the spoils of power.

The breakdown of the whole mess from John Cole:

To recap, 80 gunmen walked into the Higher Education Ministry in broad daylight and rounded up between 30 and 150 Sunni men while the police stood by and watched. The regional chief of police and a chief deputy have apparently gone fugitive since the authorities didn’t simply arrest him in his office. Add this to your mental ledger regarding Iraq – entire districts are governed by security forces who have wholly gone over to the bloody sectarian conflict. How many Iraqi brigades do we have trained right now? How many police? Subtract the number who exist merely to kill their own countrymen and you have a force that might, on a good day, secure Liechtenstein.

Attack Dogs Against Diplomacy

The recent GOP thought process applies the same logic to politics as diplomacy. Always attack and demonize, never try to compromise. Always pretend you are in position of strength (since perception is all that matters), and refuse to give ground or negotiate with those who have different views. Only talk to those who agree with you. After all, in the House of Representative,s the GOP would only bring bills to the floor if the majority of the GOP agreed with it. Who cares what the rest of the country (or world) thinks?

They exclude all opposing views, and label their very existence as evil. They live within an echo chamber, where every action is glorious and only some evil/liberal media prevents others from seeing this. This creates an utter fear of negotiation or compromise.

While Regan called the Soviet Union the evil empire, he also attended summits all the time to intimately discuss issues with the leader of this evil empire. Nixon visited Communist China just after the conclusion of the Great Leap Forward killed millions. It seems that today's pundits forget all of this and simply adopt the Bush black and white of "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

A good example is a recent Instapundit post. When told the Baker commission encourages, you know, traditional diplomacy (as opposed to cowboy style regime change), he gulps "uh oh." He later notes:

John Hinderaker is very unhappy with this talk. He also thinks that any expectation of a deal with the Iranians is "delusional."

I'll just note that the last time folks in the White House tried to cut a deal with the Iranians, Don Regan characterized it this way: "We got snookered by a bunch of rug merchants."

Ooh, can't trust those wily Persians! Throughout all this hand-wringing, there's a failure to understand we are a far greater threat to Iran than they are to us. We occupy countries on two of their borders. Our ships ply their waters (and we could blockade them just as well as they could blockade the gulf). We have thousands of nuclear weapons, tell them our only diplomatic goal as to their government is "regime change," and call them part of the "Axis of Evil."

If we had a President with some balls who really wanted to change things (as just creating terrorists and bungling occupations), then he would fly to Tehran, admit to our past sins (overthrowing their prime minister in the 50s, installing the shah, selling arms to Saddam while he was gassing Iranians), and make a plea for respect and peace, I think we would get much farther in the world. As for Syria, if we force Israel and Palestine to take some action (we control a lot of money flows to both) and help them get Golan back, things would ease up as well.

But the Republicans would rather demonize and send out hostility, fear, and militarism.

*Sigh* I shouldn't have to say this, since it goes without question. But we would have to get Iran to grow up accept Israel's right to exist (out of the West Bank and Gaza, natch). And we would keep a wary eye on the Iranians and let them know that an attack on us is an act of war. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to live in peace.

Global Solution - Peace in Afghanistan Runs Through India

The War on Terror Part one: The key to cutting off support for the Taliban

The US has ignored the UN and the international community since getting the resolution in 2002 to put inspectors back into Iraq, in the lead up to America's new quagmire.
This is a global problem. We are in a global struggle. We need the cooperation and assistance of the world to win on a global scale, just like in WW II and during the Cold War. And we need a global solution.

This is includes significant action on the four main drivers of conflict across the middle east: Israel, Iraq, the Pashtun areas of Southern Afghanistan and the Tribal areas of Pakistan, and Kashmir. The Israel and Iraq problems need to be addressed by all their neighbors (including Syria and Iran). But Pakistan is the key to the other two. First and foremost, there must be true peace in Kashmir and between the countries that were once brothers, Pakistan and India.

Let me explain. The two have fought three major wars since the British Raj on the subcontinent split in two. They are both nuclear powers. They have almost gone to war several times in the last 1o years. And while Pakistan turns a blind eye to militant infiltration into Kashmiri India, Pakistan has basically lost all three of the major conventional wars. So once the US sort of abandoned the Pakistani government after the Soviets left Afghanistan in the 80s and began making nice with India, they planned for the worst. The Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, began to support a group called the Taliban. If India invaded Pakistan and took the capital (located very close to the Indian border), the Pakistani military could fall back into the mountains of the tribal areas and into Afghanistan, with their allies, the Taliban. Since India is majority Hindu, Pakistan supported a very religious sect so they could count on a jihadi sentiment (like we are experiencing in Iraq) to help them resist the outsiders. After the US gave an ultimatum after 9-11, Pakistan has mad some effort to change, but 20 years of investment in the Taliban creates a very close bond between many in the ISI, Pakistani religious parties, and the Taliban. So we must bring a true and lasting peace to the Eastern Indian border to change the dynamic on the Afghani Western border.

This will not be easy. But we must break the log-jam that is stifling the relationship between India and Pakistan. We must find a way to neutralize their stiff-necked pride and bitter, recent past. And once this sort of existential threat is lifted from the East, support for the Taliban from inside the Pakistani government will plumet. It will lose any strategic value, and will instead become a source of trouble. There will be no more strong Pakistani ISI and military support

We must neutralize this threat to stability, and prevent a resurgence of violence and strife in Afghanistan. But we cannot declare war on Pakistan, and the pride of the people in that region would never stand American invasion. We must show Pakistanis, Pushtuns, and Afghanis that America wants peace for the region, not war. But this requires action on the periphery as well in the center.

As Winston Churchill said, "it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war." We cannot pretend we can bomb everyone in that part of the world away, since right now, the madrases are a veritable factory of Taliban production. The Pashtun tribesman on both sides of the border are bound by language, pride, and blood, and years of constant warfare and resistance from outsiders. They have lived through decades of conflict and war, first funded by Americans against the Soviets, then by the Pakistani ISI, which led to Taliban control of Afghanistan. And the motives and perceived needs of Pakistan that led to this alliance still exist. The instability in Kashmir. It is the key to the region.

This covers Kashmir and some of Afghanistan. I will discuss the rest of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel in future posts in the "Global Solution" series.

Update, 11-14-06:

The New York times just published a story about the recent rash of suicide bombers infiltrating into Afghanistan. It notes:

The would-be suicide bombers arrested recently, the Afghan intelligence official
said, emerge from two clear strands.
Some are linked to extremist groups that have long been set up and run by Pakistani intelligence as an arm of foreign policy toward rival governments in Afghanistan and India. They are technically illegal and the government now says it has cracked down on them.
Others are allied with Afghan groups like the Taliban and the renegade
militia commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, also a longtime protégé of Pakistani
intelligence, who has now allied himself with the Taliban, Afghan and NATO
officials say.

There are too many in Pakistan right now that either view the Taliban as either heroes or strategic assets. We have to change the dynamic in the region so that they are viewed as counter-productive and troublesome. The first step is to defuse the problem with India. Only then can the Pakistani government begin to take on the Madraseshat lionize the Taliban.

Update II:

For a smash up gathering of information on the tribal borderlands of Pakistan, go to this Frontline site. Movie clips, interviews, background stories and more. Only go if you want to know what we are fighting in southern Afghanistan though. And if you don't hate the troops. You don't hate the troops, do you?

The Simpson Factor: As goes Springfield, goes America

The last two Simpsons have both critiqued the Iraq war. The first in the Halloween special, with Kang and Kodos stuck in "Operation Enduring Occupation," complaining about how they were not greeted as liberators (well, one complained, the other insisted that the invasion was necessary because of the weapons of mass disintegration the earthlings were building). This was just a quick gag, though.

The Simpsons with Homer in the Army was a far more brutal critique. It stated at the the end that a determined local populace will always be able to defeat an occupying army. Essentially, that we will be unable to impose our will on the local populace in Iraq. Which is about right, especially when we've let Iraq boil over into anarchy and a low-grade civil war over the last two years.

It may mean nothing. But maybe our President watches the Simpsons, and is mulling over the lessons of last Sunday. Is Homer Simpson the Walter Cronkite of our generation?

No. But hell, the whole Fox animated line-up has been ragging on the war lately. The atmosphere of relentless cheerleading for the war and assertions that any realistic assessment of our progress only helps the insurgents has evaporated, suddenly replaced with a general consensus that we are in a quagmire and things aint good. Hopefully, we can stop digging that hole, now.