No kidding. Someone had the nerve to suggest such a comparison.
Loathe as I am to say it, Barack Obama supports some of the same positions as George Bush because-some of George Bush's positions are actually logically sensible! In fact many of the so-called flip-flops coming from Obama in recent weeks represent rephrasings of his positions or adjustments to changing situations. Isn't that what a politician is supposed to do? I sure don't want a president who does not change his policies to suit changing circumstances.
On gun rights, Barack Obama is suddenly a gun rights supporter because he backed the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the rights of the individual. Nonsense. Barack Obama has always been in favor of affirming the rights of the individual while at the same time, supporting regulations that save lives in crime-ridden urban areas like his native Chicago. From the recent commentary you'd think he's in cahoots with the NRA...
On the death penalty and the "mental distress" issue of abortion, Obama is simply responding to new Supreme Court decisions. Where in the rules of politics does it say that you have to either completely support or completely oppose a policy? One of the great injustices of politics is that pro-choice is somehow equated with pro-abortion. As if liberals spend their free time getting abortions for fun. Pro-choice politicians would like nothing more than for the number of abortions to be zero. Plenty of pro-choice politicians have affirmed their personal opposition to abortion while maintaining that the decision rests solely with a woman and her doctor, not the government.
Concerning Obama's support for faith-based initiatives, there is nothing wrong with supporting social justice programs run by churches. Religion has shown a great power to ease the suffering of less fortunate individuals, and by all means, such programs should be backed. However, under President Bush, these programs have not been used to aid the poor, they have been used as spoils handed over to his cronies. As shown by his numerous tax cuts for the rich and funding cuts for the poor, our President could care less about our nation's poor. How's that for following the teachings of Jesus? The Democratic Party has historically been far more connected with social welfare programs that help the needy in our society. A President Obama would simply take the power of the churches and use it for its intended purpose-aiding the needy.
On Obama's recent renunciation of public financing, what politician can be expected to give up the vast fundraising power he has managed to build? I do not applaud his decision to renounce his previous pledges but I can certainly see why he did so. Also consider Obama's efforts to raise money from millions of small donors instead of the usual tactics of complete reliance on corporate interests. Of course, Obama still raises large amounts of money from corporate interests, but he has also raised more money from grass-roots organizations than any candidate in history. MoveOn.org, a major Democratic PAC, has moved to get more money from small donors. It has closed its 527 group, which is subject to less regulations regarding contributions. Also noteworthy is the massive RNC warchest that is not officially part of McCain's campaign. The Obama campaign recently calculated that it is still behind McCain in funds due to the massive RNC cash reserves.
On foreign policy, of course Obama supports certain Bush policies - because they have worked. For some reason, the author implies that opposing the Bush administration means opposing all of its actions. Obama has said over and over that the campaign in Afghanistan is where our resources should be focused, instead of in Iraq. The North Korea talks are something that no sane politician could possibly oppose, and diplomacy has always been part of the Obama platform. Remember that Obama was the one to pledge to talk to hostile leaders. Note that the talks with North Korea came after years of the failed Bush policy of threats and nonnegotiation. It was only smart work on the part of the State Department and Secretary Rice that North Korea was brought back to the negotiating table. Only this time, Kim Jong-Il had more powerful cards to play as failed Bush policy had enabled him to develop nuclear weapons. Expanding the military is likewise an important nonpartisan issue that is even more necessary given the Bush admistration's overstretching of the military. Cuba? Same deal. Why should a politician be compelled to keep his positions the same, even if he sincerely changes his positions? The embargo position switch can't possibly gain him much of an electoral edge, it's such a sideline issue that Obama can't very well use it to leverage votes.
Obama's characterization of Iran as a "grave threat" is due to, you guessed it, the Bush administration's mishandling of the situation. Bush's failed policy of not talking to hostile countries has given Iran to step up its own nuclear program. Back in 2002, when Iran was added to the Axis of Evil, it was in fact a valuable ally in the fight against the Taliban (see post: Iranian Revolutionary Guard for more on Iran). If we hadn't started the demagoguing then, Iran might now be a stabilizing force in the region, not a potential enemy.
Finally, the right's characterization of the Iraq issue has created a Catch-22 for Obama. First, McCain criticized Obama for not going to Iraq and speaking with the generals on the ground. But when he does exactly that, the Republicans criticize him for completely reversing his position. Since when does a carefully planned withdrawal based on the recommendations of military professionals mean the opposite of a carefully planned withdrawal based on a timetable? I'd like the McCain camp to come up with a similarly careful plan of action in Iraq. The Republican plan to hand over authority to the Iraqis is clearly not working as planned, due to serious flaws and delays in the execution. Without the goal of withdrawal, a secure handover to the Iraqis is not going to happen either.
Now I certainly see merit in criticism that says Obama has repudiated his pledge to change politics as we know it. But what's wrong with having a president that pays attention to what the people want? What's wrong with having a president that moves to the center because that's where the public is? Isn't that what the president is supposed to do, carry out the will of the people?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Darfur.1
Darfur has become my cause célèbre after a great deal of research done, documentaries watched, and presentations attended. Sadly most of the damage was done several years ago at which point I did not know much about Darfur besides its name. I am already far too late to do anything meaningful to help save the people of Darfur. Most of its population has already been victimized as the West, including me, stood by. "Never Again" has become a phrase as cheap as the server space this blog post is kept on.
However, as long as a single Darfuri lives and government Antonov bombers still fly raids over what few Black African villages remain standing, we are (I am) still obligated to do something.
Reluctant as I am to lay blame, especially when Darfuris are still dying, as a blogger it is one of my responsibilities to pressure and shame more influential people into action. Apart from specialty international events journals, most of the commentary by the mainstream press has been in denial of the facts on the ground. This article from the BBC illustrates the point quite nicely.
The introductory mention of Rwanda (another personal area of interest) is the stock reaction to genocide by the conscientious Westerner. Of course, it's sadly mistaken. Plenty of powerful people opposed armed intervention. Inaction is not partisan-Bill Clinton let 800,000 Rwandans die just as easily as George Bush is letting hundreds of thousands of Darfuris die (estimates are rough, major humanitarian organizations have estimated around 400,000 dead and approximately 3 million displaced out of a total Darfuri population of about 7 million, just over half of whom are the targeted Black African tribes). Nor is inaction limited to this side of the Atlantic. French President François Mitterrand provided a steady stream of monetary and military aid to the Hutu militia-aid that was used to purchases cheap Chinese machetes by the crateful, which were then used to hack apart their victims. After the heads stopped rolling (due to the victory of Tutsi rebels), the French (under the UN) rushed in with amazing speed to set up a "safe zone" in Operation Turquoise to provide for the safety of Rwandan civilians. They managed to save some innocent Hutus who had not taken part in the slaughter, but it was also a haven for the remnants of the Hutu militia who had killed 800,000 over the past 100 days. The West has largely forgotten its role in enabling the Rwandan genocide.
I certainly credit British Foreign Secretary Milliband for his recognition of the worthlessness of the "Never Again" slogan, however, it comes too late. The genocide in Darfur has already happened and once again we are saying "Never Again".
A war between a sovereign government and a rebel group is the wrong way to characterize the conflict in Darfur. 400,000 casualties. Now if those 400,000 were all rebel soldiers, then the government would have a legitimate argument that it is trying to fight off insurrection, even if the rebels had a valid cause. Then again, if there were a rebel army of 400,000, Omar al-Bashir and his henchmen would be burning in hell right now and Sudan would be under a different regime. The reality is that the vast majority of the casualties in this "war" are civilians. Black African civilians deliberately targeted by the Arab militia. You can call it a war, but it is a war waged by a government against its defenseless citizens.
It is true that most of the deaths have already occurred. But the statement that there are far fewer deaths now than before has an obvious caveat. Go back to the previously mentioned statistics that said that 400,000 have been killed and around 3-4 million displaced. Consider the fact that just over half of the (pre-genocide) 7 million population is the targeted Black African population. Not too many Darfuris left unharmed, are there? Millions have fled to Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps, many more to neighboring countries. It is estimated that 90% of African villages in Darfur have been destroyed. No wonder there are less deaths. At least the government can't just level the IDP camps, as foreign aid workers are there who might get killed and cause a Western backlash. Not that the deaths of humanitarian workers (such as the attacks this week) make a difference. Spineless Western countries still will not do anything.
But what is most disconcerting about the article is the assertion that humanitarian aid has made life in Darfur "just about tolerable". That relief has been "so proficient that death rates among Darfur's children have been brought down to pre-war levels". To even suggest that life in Darfur is "just about tolerable" is an incredible injustice to the victims of this horrible disaster. Women and children in IDP camps regularly risk rape, beatings, mutilation, or death when venturing out into the desert to find water or firewood. Many children have been orphaned or separated from their families by the conflict. Disease and famine run rampant in the crowded, understaffed, and undersupplied camps. Regular Janjaweed militia attacks and painful memories keep Darfuris in a constant state of fear. Darfuris already struggle day to day in a living hell. Intervention could hardly "pave the way to a problem from hell" in Darfur.
To even suggest that humanitarian efforts have brought life in Darfur to a tolerable level is a clear path to forgetting the whole conflict. Of course humanitarian efforts should continue, but as the Sudanese government has shown us repeatedly, it is expert at kicking out (or killing) aid workers when the militia want more victims to butcher. It is not enough. Yes, millions of lives have been saved, but if you killed another million Darfuris, you could still say "millions are still alive". Let us not pretend that we have saved Darfur. And as any humanitarian worker who has been in Darfur can tell you, the symbol of the UN is not enough to protect you from marauding militiamen. Only a trained military force can do that.
The rest of the article basically outlines a potential military intervention in Darfur. The author raises some valid points that in my opinion, simply strengthen the rationale for intervention. Mr. de Waal is correct that Khartoum fears regime change or secession for Darfur. And it is exactly this fear that is the West's trump card. Omar al-Bashir saw what happened to Slobodan Milosevic, what happened to Saddamn Hussein. He may be a cruel, genocidal dictator, but he has shown us that he is not stupid when it comes to international politics. So far the West has simply sent him idle threats and International Criminal Court investigations (which Sudan is not under the jurisdiction of anyway) and al-Bashir has read our cowardice perfectly. We are cautious to invade, especially Arab nations, in the post-Iraq era. But our failure in Iraq cannot be an excuse to not intervene in Darfur. I say, out of Iraq, into Darfur! We should have seen the parallels to Rwanda as soon as the killings started.
Lest parallels to Iraq be drawn, I add that the force need not be very large. Khartoum is not stupid enough to directly oppose a modern Western military force. In 2005, a peace agreement was signed in Southern Sudan that led to a (at least in appearance) coalition government and a promised referendum on independence for Southern Sudan. All it takes is enough of a force to scare Khartoum to the negotiating table, and the killing will stop. As Mr. de Waal writes, idle threats are meaningless if not backed up by credible force. So why not actually assemble said credible force? Our problem in Iraq is that we are fighting insurgents. Our goal in Darfur is not regime change, it is just to stop the killing. If the current regime stands, a long-term occupying force is not necessary and we will not have another nation-building project on our hands.
To the worries of opposition from the Islamic world, remember that the victims of the Darfur conflict are themselves Muslims as well. Omar al-Bashir himself is not even an Arab. As long as it is made clear that we are not there to change the regime, there should be no viable arguments from the Arab world. In 1991, we attacked Iraq to get them out of Kuwait-with the support of the Arab world. Bush Sr. smartly decided not to go all the way. Who is there that will say that the Sudanese regime can stand up to the might of the Western world with its weapons aimed at it? For all our claims of superpower status, we have let such petty men as North Korea's Kim Jong-Il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walk all over us, flaunting their defiance of American power. America is still the most powerful nation on the planet, and we must once again put that power to use to save lives and promote peace.
However, as long as a single Darfuri lives and government Antonov bombers still fly raids over what few Black African villages remain standing, we are (I am) still obligated to do something.
Reluctant as I am to lay blame, especially when Darfuris are still dying, as a blogger it is one of my responsibilities to pressure and shame more influential people into action. Apart from specialty international events journals, most of the commentary by the mainstream press has been in denial of the facts on the ground. This article from the BBC illustrates the point quite nicely.
The introductory mention of Rwanda (another personal area of interest) is the stock reaction to genocide by the conscientious Westerner. Of course, it's sadly mistaken. Plenty of powerful people opposed armed intervention. Inaction is not partisan-Bill Clinton let 800,000 Rwandans die just as easily as George Bush is letting hundreds of thousands of Darfuris die (estimates are rough, major humanitarian organizations have estimated around 400,000 dead and approximately 3 million displaced out of a total Darfuri population of about 7 million, just over half of whom are the targeted Black African tribes). Nor is inaction limited to this side of the Atlantic. French President François Mitterrand provided a steady stream of monetary and military aid to the Hutu militia-aid that was used to purchases cheap Chinese machetes by the crateful, which were then used to hack apart their victims. After the heads stopped rolling (due to the victory of Tutsi rebels), the French (under the UN) rushed in with amazing speed to set up a "safe zone" in Operation Turquoise to provide for the safety of Rwandan civilians. They managed to save some innocent Hutus who had not taken part in the slaughter, but it was also a haven for the remnants of the Hutu militia who had killed 800,000 over the past 100 days. The West has largely forgotten its role in enabling the Rwandan genocide.
I certainly credit British Foreign Secretary Milliband for his recognition of the worthlessness of the "Never Again" slogan, however, it comes too late. The genocide in Darfur has already happened and once again we are saying "Never Again".
A war between a sovereign government and a rebel group is the wrong way to characterize the conflict in Darfur. 400,000 casualties. Now if those 400,000 were all rebel soldiers, then the government would have a legitimate argument that it is trying to fight off insurrection, even if the rebels had a valid cause. Then again, if there were a rebel army of 400,000, Omar al-Bashir and his henchmen would be burning in hell right now and Sudan would be under a different regime. The reality is that the vast majority of the casualties in this "war" are civilians. Black African civilians deliberately targeted by the Arab militia. You can call it a war, but it is a war waged by a government against its defenseless citizens.
It is true that most of the deaths have already occurred. But the statement that there are far fewer deaths now than before has an obvious caveat. Go back to the previously mentioned statistics that said that 400,000 have been killed and around 3-4 million displaced. Consider the fact that just over half of the (pre-genocide) 7 million population is the targeted Black African population. Not too many Darfuris left unharmed, are there? Millions have fled to Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps, many more to neighboring countries. It is estimated that 90% of African villages in Darfur have been destroyed. No wonder there are less deaths. At least the government can't just level the IDP camps, as foreign aid workers are there who might get killed and cause a Western backlash. Not that the deaths of humanitarian workers (such as the attacks this week) make a difference. Spineless Western countries still will not do anything.
But what is most disconcerting about the article is the assertion that humanitarian aid has made life in Darfur "just about tolerable". That relief has been "so proficient that death rates among Darfur's children have been brought down to pre-war levels". To even suggest that life in Darfur is "just about tolerable" is an incredible injustice to the victims of this horrible disaster. Women and children in IDP camps regularly risk rape, beatings, mutilation, or death when venturing out into the desert to find water or firewood. Many children have been orphaned or separated from their families by the conflict. Disease and famine run rampant in the crowded, understaffed, and undersupplied camps. Regular Janjaweed militia attacks and painful memories keep Darfuris in a constant state of fear. Darfuris already struggle day to day in a living hell. Intervention could hardly "pave the way to a problem from hell" in Darfur.
To even suggest that humanitarian efforts have brought life in Darfur to a tolerable level is a clear path to forgetting the whole conflict. Of course humanitarian efforts should continue, but as the Sudanese government has shown us repeatedly, it is expert at kicking out (or killing) aid workers when the militia want more victims to butcher. It is not enough. Yes, millions of lives have been saved, but if you killed another million Darfuris, you could still say "millions are still alive". Let us not pretend that we have saved Darfur. And as any humanitarian worker who has been in Darfur can tell you, the symbol of the UN is not enough to protect you from marauding militiamen. Only a trained military force can do that.
The rest of the article basically outlines a potential military intervention in Darfur. The author raises some valid points that in my opinion, simply strengthen the rationale for intervention. Mr. de Waal is correct that Khartoum fears regime change or secession for Darfur. And it is exactly this fear that is the West's trump card. Omar al-Bashir saw what happened to Slobodan Milosevic, what happened to Saddamn Hussein. He may be a cruel, genocidal dictator, but he has shown us that he is not stupid when it comes to international politics. So far the West has simply sent him idle threats and International Criminal Court investigations (which Sudan is not under the jurisdiction of anyway) and al-Bashir has read our cowardice perfectly. We are cautious to invade, especially Arab nations, in the post-Iraq era. But our failure in Iraq cannot be an excuse to not intervene in Darfur. I say, out of Iraq, into Darfur! We should have seen the parallels to Rwanda as soon as the killings started.
Lest parallels to Iraq be drawn, I add that the force need not be very large. Khartoum is not stupid enough to directly oppose a modern Western military force. In 2005, a peace agreement was signed in Southern Sudan that led to a (at least in appearance) coalition government and a promised referendum on independence for Southern Sudan. All it takes is enough of a force to scare Khartoum to the negotiating table, and the killing will stop. As Mr. de Waal writes, idle threats are meaningless if not backed up by credible force. So why not actually assemble said credible force? Our problem in Iraq is that we are fighting insurgents. Our goal in Darfur is not regime change, it is just to stop the killing. If the current regime stands, a long-term occupying force is not necessary and we will not have another nation-building project on our hands.
To the worries of opposition from the Islamic world, remember that the victims of the Darfur conflict are themselves Muslims as well. Omar al-Bashir himself is not even an Arab. As long as it is made clear that we are not there to change the regime, there should be no viable arguments from the Arab world. In 1991, we attacked Iraq to get them out of Kuwait-with the support of the Arab world. Bush Sr. smartly decided not to go all the way. Who is there that will say that the Sudanese regime can stand up to the might of the Western world with its weapons aimed at it? For all our claims of superpower status, we have let such petty men as North Korea's Kim Jong-Il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walk all over us, flaunting their defiance of American power. America is still the most powerful nation on the planet, and we must once again put that power to use to save lives and promote peace.
More idle posturing on Russia
Yet another completely useless suggestion from John McCain.
What the hell was he thinking? A man who claims to have more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama can't possibly say something like this and expect to be taken seriously. Yes of course Putin has consolidated his control over Russia even with his departure from office, but how is kicking Russia out of the G-8 going to do anything? I thought isolationism went out of style after WWII...
And who are we to be criticizing other countries for chipping away at democracy? America, land of the PATRIOT ACT, warrantless wiretapping, and Guantanamo Bay...
What the hell was he thinking? A man who claims to have more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama can't possibly say something like this and expect to be taken seriously. Yes of course Putin has consolidated his control over Russia even with his departure from office, but how is kicking Russia out of the G-8 going to do anything? I thought isolationism went out of style after WWII...
And who are we to be criticizing other countries for chipping away at democracy? America, land of the PATRIOT ACT, warrantless wiretapping, and Guantanamo Bay...
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Sharia in Britain, etc.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips of England declared in a speech that Sharia law can be used in England to negotiate contracts as long as it complies with British Law.
This alarmed me at first (the water around here gives you a conservative knee-jerk xenophobia if you aren't careful) but after some consideration and reading of the surprisingly civil comments, I realized this, if taken at face value, has absolutely no meaning.
Where's the beef?
If English law is still supreme, then what was the point of the speech? I don't agree with the author's viewpoint (FOX commentator) but he raises some valid questions. The speech either has no meaning or it says that Sharia can supersede English law.
--
The G8 moved with blinding fast speed on Zimbabwe, calling for sanctions, my god, sanctions! He should've provided us with intelligence about the terrorists, it worked well enough for Omar al-Bashir. Heck we even flew a genocidaire over on a private jet to get "intelligence" off of him back in '05. Whole lot of good Sudanese intelligence is doing us now.
--
In further news, the BBC is just as bad as the American media if you go by the content of this article. It's fascinating that the argument isn't because a prominent businessman was caught in a bizarre and creepy sexual act, it's because of allegations that aforementioned bizarre and creepy sexual act involved National Socialism.
This alarmed me at first (the water around here gives you a conservative knee-jerk xenophobia if you aren't careful) but after some consideration and reading of the surprisingly civil comments, I realized this, if taken at face value, has absolutely no meaning.
Where's the beef?
If English law is still supreme, then what was the point of the speech? I don't agree with the author's viewpoint (FOX commentator) but he raises some valid questions. The speech either has no meaning or it says that Sharia can supersede English law.
--
The G8 moved with blinding fast speed on Zimbabwe, calling for sanctions, my god, sanctions! He should've provided us with intelligence about the terrorists, it worked well enough for Omar al-Bashir. Heck we even flew a genocidaire over on a private jet to get "intelligence" off of him back in '05. Whole lot of good Sudanese intelligence is doing us now.
--
In further news, the BBC is just as bad as the American media if you go by the content of this article. It's fascinating that the argument isn't because a prominent businessman was caught in a bizarre and creepy sexual act, it's because of allegations that aforementioned bizarre and creepy sexual act involved National Socialism.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Obama Republicans
This article, by Bruce Bartlett of The New Republic, looks into the unusual phenomenon of conservatives backing Obama, with the most liberal voting record in the US Senate.
The Republican party could be in its last year of existence if the pro-business and libertarian wings of the party defect en masse to Obama. Many critics mention Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric but it must be kept in mind that he is a Democrat and must appeal to precisely the people who believe they have lost their jobs to NAFTA. And yet Hillary Clinton, wife of the man who signed NAFTA into law, has won the votes of the white working class. Michigan? Ohio? Pennsylvania? As shown by the Democratic primaries, Obama needs the votes of the NAFTA-haters to win the White House. However, if Obama wants to revive the economy and deliver on his promise of change, he will have to embrace more conservative economic policies instead of the protectionism that he has espoused during the campaign.
One thing that has rarely been mentioned, even by the Clinton campaign, is the economic prosperity of the 1990's. Much of the credit for the '90s boom goes to Bill Clinton's NAFTA and that decade's globalization. However, in today's turbulent times, especially in industrial states, much of the electorate blames the nation's economic woes on free trade. McCain admirably took the path of telling industrial state voters that their jobs aren't coming back, and he has paid the political price for it. Obama has railed against NAFTA during the campaign but Obama has shown a willingness to listen to his advisers that is lacking in the stubborn Republican John McCain. His economic team is composed of highly competent economists such as chief advisor Austan Goolsbee and former Fed chief Paul Volcker, as well as business leaders such as investment titan Warren Buffet. Surely these men experienced in the business world will whisper to Obama to perhaps discard the Democratic tradition of protectionism and borrow a page from the last Democratic administration's economic playbook.
As a pro-business liberal myself, I look forward to the fall defection of like-minded socially liberal professionals trapped in the Republican party only because of its business-friendly policies. Hopefully, pragmatism will win out over populism in the Obama administration.
The Republican party could be in its last year of existence if the pro-business and libertarian wings of the party defect en masse to Obama. Many critics mention Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric but it must be kept in mind that he is a Democrat and must appeal to precisely the people who believe they have lost their jobs to NAFTA. And yet Hillary Clinton, wife of the man who signed NAFTA into law, has won the votes of the white working class. Michigan? Ohio? Pennsylvania? As shown by the Democratic primaries, Obama needs the votes of the NAFTA-haters to win the White House. However, if Obama wants to revive the economy and deliver on his promise of change, he will have to embrace more conservative economic policies instead of the protectionism that he has espoused during the campaign.
One thing that has rarely been mentioned, even by the Clinton campaign, is the economic prosperity of the 1990's. Much of the credit for the '90s boom goes to Bill Clinton's NAFTA and that decade's globalization. However, in today's turbulent times, especially in industrial states, much of the electorate blames the nation's economic woes on free trade. McCain admirably took the path of telling industrial state voters that their jobs aren't coming back, and he has paid the political price for it. Obama has railed against NAFTA during the campaign but Obama has shown a willingness to listen to his advisers that is lacking in the stubborn Republican John McCain. His economic team is composed of highly competent economists such as chief advisor Austan Goolsbee and former Fed chief Paul Volcker, as well as business leaders such as investment titan Warren Buffet. Surely these men experienced in the business world will whisper to Obama to perhaps discard the Democratic tradition of protectionism and borrow a page from the last Democratic administration's economic playbook.
As a pro-business liberal myself, I look forward to the fall defection of like-minded socially liberal professionals trapped in the Republican party only because of its business-friendly policies. Hopefully, pragmatism will win out over populism in the Obama administration.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there was a group of insurgents called the mujahedin that included one Osama bin Laden, that was funded (and perhaps trained) by a foreign government. During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapon using government was backed by the same country.
A country called the United States of America.
Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't take a strong stance against Iran, or that the Revolutionary Guards do not fund groups such as Hezbollah, I'm saying that we need to examine our own record before we claim the right to judge other countries. If the Revolutionary Guards are a terrorist organization, then the CIA most definitely is too.
Obama has a point that the move is merely provocative and we know this administration likes nothing more than driving the country into wars with Islamic nations it doesn't like.
Anyone who says that Obama is simply waffling his position, I challenge you to tell me what political ground Obama wins by opposing the condemnation of Iran. He will gain the votes of those who support the regime. Last time I checked there weren't that many of those people in the US.
What had the Iranians done to us back in 2002 to merit being placed in the Axis of Evil? Iran was a key ally in the fight against the Taliban, they had supported the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance for many years and provided American forces with key assistance in Afghanistan. At that time, Iran's president was the reformist Mohammad Khatami, who attempted to put Iran on the path back toward democracy and an open society. As many Americans are ignorant of, Iran is a non-Arab, non-Arabic speaking nation with a unique culture and history that goes back millenia. It also has a population that is eager for democracy and clamoring to join the Western World, which alas, its theocratic leaders do not want. Speaking of democracy, in 1951, the Iranians democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq, a European-educated man, to be Prime Minister. Sadly, he was overthrown in 1953 by a coup backed by, you guessed it, the American CIA. We squashed Iran's best chance for democracy in favor of a dictatorial Shah. How's that for spreading democracy to the Middle East...
To compound the nonsense, we recently removed North Korea, a nation with known nuclear weapons, from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. First of all, NK poses far more of a threat to the US than Iran ever did. To start, it actually has tested nuclear weapons, unlike Iran. It does not have an educated population and active dissidents like Iran does. It's led by one crazed man instead of by Iran's complex hierarchy of leaders. Under the Clinton administration, we had been talking to the North Koreans (albeit not very successfully). When Bush came around, we stopped, and they were free to develop their nukes. But even Bush was convinced to talk and with smart diplomacy on the part of the State department, we managed to get the North Koreans to negotiate. Note that by this time, we had already given the North Koreans enough time to develop long-ranged missiles and nuclear weapons. John McCain has repeatedly endorsed the Bush strategy of hostile posturing instead of smart diplomacy. The Bush administration itself has reluctantly showed us that diplomacy does work, even if it still refuses to acknowledge it. Threats mean nothing unless we actually invade enemy nations, which is a last resort if diplomacy has failed.
And if we can just remove a country from the terrorist sponsors list because they decided to talk to us, what's the point of the list? Kim Jong-Il couldn't care less about whether he's on the list, and putting Iran on the list will just aggravated Muslim countries into more anti-American hatred. Nelson Mandela and his ANC were labeled as terrorists until just recently. I challenge supporters of McCain's position to tell me what the labeling of groups as terrorists actually does.