No nukes for Iran

By now you've heard about the Iran nuclear arms agreement with the US and five other countries. If not, the basic terms are Iran agrees to curtail its nuke enrichment programs in return for an easing of the crippling international sanctions they've been living under for what seems like forever. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. It offers some relief to the Iranian people who suffer the most under sanctions and the beautiful country of Iran doesn't get bombed into glass ashtrays.

Of course, all the people who thought bombing Iraq was the most brilliant idea ever, namely neo-cons and Republicans hate this deal. They're carrying on like it's the end of the world as we know it. One imagines they would have liked it better if a Republican administration had brokered it, but maybe not. Those warmongers never lose their taste for blood shed by other people.

I would have preferred Iran end its quest for nuclear energy generation as well. But then I would prefer that for everybody, especially the US. In any event, it's only a six month trial period. That will go by fast but I'll take a few months of  peace over imminent war any time.

Don't want to go to war no more

I haven't talked about Syria because there's already enough chatter out there but for the record, this is one fight I hope Obama loses. I believe Assad used chemical weapons. Yes it's appalling but I don't want to bomb Syria. I fail to see how that solves anything. The end result is more dead people. So what's the point?

These are the things I can do without

The children go to sleep listening to the sound of bombs." ~mother of wounded child in Gaza

Until two days ago, I haven't been able to even look at the news in the latest round of the endless fight between Israel and Palestine. It's too heart shattering. I finally broke down and watched Al Jazeera live for the first time for about 20 minutes the other night. Who knew it would be a good news station? Reminded me of CNN when it first started. More or less straight news with little editorializing.

I saw video footage of the bomb damage. In Israel, I saw a hole in a building about half as small as the hole in the ground pictured here. No one was injured or killed.

Then they showed the damage caused by an Israeli bomb. It looked exactly like this:

I get the whole right of defense argument, but ye gods, this just strikes me as leveling your neighbor's entire house because his kid broke your window with a BB gun. The internet tells me the Israeli bombs have struck over 1,600 times in a city about twice the size of Washington D.C.

And then there's our country's response to this horror, summed up rather perfectly in this graphic making the rounds.

So much for blessed be the peacemakers. I'm at the point where I want to shout so loud the whole world could hear: EVERYBODY! EVERYWHERE! Stop. Dropping. Bombs. Please.

I've been seeing conflicting reports all afternoon about a pending ceasefire. I hope it happens, but have no hope it will end the needless deaths unless they can figure out how to share the land. It all seems so insane to me. It always has. For what the world spends on killing, (or threatening to kill), each other we could house, clothe and feed the entire world. Which I suspect is what most of the world's population would prefer. If not for the power mad leaders and crazy theocrats of all stripes, we could have it. [photos via Sean Paul Kelley]

President Obama leads while Romney bleats

Being at the beach reminds me why most people don't spend 24/7 jacked into the matrix. There's a beautiful world out there outside of the horror show that goes on in the daily news cycle. Hard to focus on writing with the surf calling my name just outside the window.

Of course, I can't unplug entirely. I've been riveted by the news, in the same way you just have to look when you drive by a wreck on the highway. One thing that seems to have slipped under the radar is Obama's subtle confrontation with Egypt. I've seen it spun by the pundits as a misstep but Juan Cole sees it differently and he's the pundit I trust the most on the Middle East.

Mr. Cole tells us Obama's slap at Eygpt's ally status was a direct challenge to Morsi and it worked to some degree in defusing that situation. Surely, when the official Twitter account of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt issues a robust rebuke of the attack on the embassy, it shows at least respect, if perhaps some fear, of President Obama's leadership.

More worrisome, is how quickly the Muslim protests are spreading across the globe. Checking in late last night and finding Atlantic Wire's interactive map was a sobering moment.

Who knows what will happen next, but this much I know for certain. I'm grateful and relieved this is being dealt with by President Obama instead of the blustering unfit fool, Multiple Choice Mitt Romney.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Horrifying

Usually try to avoid this sort of story on Sunday morning, but can't get this photo out of my head. What a mess in Syria.

Heart breaks for this child. What a vision to take through life. [via]

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli

Even though they're not there, the Marine's Battle Hymn has been lodged in my ear since last night when I heard the revolution is reaching Gadhafi's doorstep. It's a bit confusing at this point of course. The twitter is telling me that right now the CNN bureau international journalists* in their local hotel are scrambling for safety as heavy gunfire surrounds them. But Juan Cole has some details posted now and he's been a reliable reporter on all things Middle East forever. Also, my pals at
Newshoggers collected lots of links to breaking news sources. And let me add my friend Ken Bazinet who's been current on new developments since this started.

For myself, I don't really have anything to say about this at the moment. It's hard to imagine deposing Gadhafi would be bad for the country, but one never knows if his replacement will be any better. Still rather amazing to watch it all unfold.

*: Follow Matthew Chance of CNN for those updates.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Cheney: Mubarak not so bad

Crawling out from under some undisclosed rock, Dick Cheney lectures us on loyalty to our friendly dictators:

But Mr. Cheney said that from the standpoint of American interests, while democracy and freedom in other countries were to be celebrated, they were not the only important issues. On other fronts, he said, Mr. Mubarak had long helped the United States.

“He’s been a good man, he’s been a good friend and ally of the United States,” Mr. Cheney said. “We need to remember that.”

Sadly, he's right. It's not like we're so pure. The US has a long history of supporting repressive regimes when it suits our purposes. And really, how many dictators are willing to do our dirty work for us on secret renditions?

That being said, the empath in me does have some small sympathy for Mubarak. I know he's done much evil but he's still just a human being and it can't be easy for him to see his status being shredded so publicly. Imagine if all the internet trolls suddenly started demonstrating in front of your home. Thinking it must feel like that, only much worse. [Reuter photo]

Email from an ordinary citizen in Egypt

There's a revolt in Egypt and suddenly everybody on the internets is an expert on Middle East policy. While there are more than a few truly informed commentators out there, Frank Rich echoed my reaction to the explosion of armchair experts:

A month ago most Americans could not have picked Hosni Mubarak out of a police lineup. American foreign policy, even in Afghanistan, was all but invisible throughout the 2010 election season. ... And so now — as the world’s most unstable neighborhood explodes before our eyes — does anyone seriously believe that most Americans are up to speed? Our government may be scrambling, but that’s nothing compared to its constituents. After a near-decade of fighting wars in the Arab world, we can still barely distinguish Sunni from Shia.

It's not so easy to filter through the noise to get to the relevant views, but a long time list-serv friend just started a blog and her inaugural post reprints an email from an ordinary citizen in Alexandria. Read it in full for a real life view from inside but a couple of the salient points. For one, the author tells us not to believe the media, particularly Al Jazeera. She says the protests have been more peaceful than chaotic. Not that there isn't any violence though:

What we cannot understand is that ALL the jails in Egypt were forced open at the SAME time and prisoners released (incl. political prisoners and criminals) and let loose on the Egyptian population. We were in fear for our lives when we heard via TV the screams of Cairo inhabitants, particularly in Maadi, asking for help and protection from robbers who went into their homes en masse.

However, they apparently think it's been worth it:

The overall feeling is that, while this revolution has come at the cost of many losing their lives, everyone has a sense that it has shaken the country from the stagnation we felt it was going through and we are all hopeful that it will bring the changes that we aspire to.

I hope she's right.

Little Egypt

Reading the headlines but not following the Egypt protests closely. I can't really deal with the "mania of the moment" aspect of the discourse. But everyone else is talking about it. A lot.

Of course, if I did feel like delving into it, I'd be reading Steve Hynd at Newshoggers. He's my go-to guy for unspinning the narrative on foreign policy.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Misreading Biden

There's a bit of stir over Biden's appearance yesterday on "This Week" with George Stephanopolous. This particular remark is "being widely interpreted" as giving a tacit green light to Israel to bomb Iran.

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."

As I tweeted to Greg Mitchell, (gah - I can't believe I'm tweeting), I didn't read it that way at all. Not that anyone pays attention to me, but Juan Cole had the same take as I did.

So what Biden was really saying is that the Obama administration intends to engage Iran diplomatically, and that if anyone wants Iran attacked they will have to do it themselves. This is not a green light to the Israelis, who hardly need one. It is a tough message to the right wing of the Israel lobbies that the Obama administration is not going to launch any hostilities with Iran, even after the hard line power grab of three weeks ago.

Exactly. As I read it, keeping in mind Biden's unique style of speaking, he was saying, "How would we stop them?" I mean, I know we give them a ton of military aid, but no one could deny the politics of telling them what to do with it, are complicated.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Nightmare in Gaza

I can hardly bear to read the news reports. It just gets uglier every day. Cernig tells me they're using cluster bombs. I've heard they're using White Phosporous. Three schools bombed. Women and children dead. Thousands injured. The backlash is spreading everywhere, with random Jews under attack all over Europe.

I in no way excuse Hamas for their part in this, but to me the Israeli response to their provocation looks like the equivalent of bombing an entire city block to get rid of a few pesky flies in your house. But whatever it is, this surely isn't going to lead to peaceful co-existence. Juan Cole reminds me today of why such a vigorous military campaign is so dangerous.

In 1996, Israeli jets bombed a UN building where civilians had taken refuge at Cana/ Qana in south Lebanon, killing 102 persons; in the place where Jesus is said to have made water into wine, Israeli bombs wrought a different sort of transformation. In the distant, picturesque port of Hamburg, a young graduate student studying traditional architecture of Aleppo saw footage like this on the news [graphic]. He was consumed with anguish and the desire for revenge. As soon as operation Grapes of Wrath had begun the week before, he had written out a martyrdom will, indicating his willingness to die avenging the victims, killed in that operation--with airplanes and bombs that were a free gift from the United States. His name was Muhammad Atta. Five years later he piloted American Airlines 11 into the World Trade Center.

Violence begets violence. There's got to be a better way to resolve this than with bombs.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News.]

Stray thoughts

I hate what's going on in the Gaza. But I don't want to talk about it. I don't understand it and I just wish they would all stop fighting and killing each other. If you want to read the analysis, there' s more than enough at Memeorandum.

I just can't seem to care about who gets to be Senator from New York. I don't think Caroline Kennedy would be awful, but who knows. I've read a lot of pros and cons. Seems to me this is something for New Yorkers to decide.

And I wonder whatever happened to Lester. He used to practically live in my comment section. He got mad at me one day and left in a huff. He never came back.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News.]

You want lox with that Mr. President?

By Libby

This may offer a clue on why Bush prefers bombs to banter. In order to conduct diplomatic talks, you have to have some command of language.

Personal relationships were also on Mr. Bush’s mind as he arrived here in Jerusalem, just days after the May 10 wedding of his daughter, Jenna. His Israeli hosts were well aware of the nuptials; many greeted the president with the traditional Jewish offer of congratulations, “Mazel tov,” which means, “Good luck.”

But Mr. Bush had clearly not brushed up on his Hebrew. Before he left the White House, two Israeli journalists opened an interview by congratulating him — in English.

“Thank you,” Mr. Bush said. “It was — as my Jewish friends tell me, there was mazel tov.”

This is the man that claims he going to broker a peace agreement before he leaves office? One might think with those lofty goals he would have bothered to learn the meaning of the most common Hebrew phrase on the planet.

How many days is it again? My backwards Bush clock stopped working at 666. [via]

[cross-posted to The Reaction]

Ending the occupation of Iraq

By Libby

I'm fighting off the grog from too much sleep today and sloughing through the depressing news. I'm not finding much I feel like talking about but Zbigniew Brzezinski has an op-ed in the WaPo worth reading on how to end the Iraq occupation with some measure of grace. I thought this was his best point.

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

The truth is, no one can predict what effect withdrawing our military support would have on Iraq or the situation in the Middle East generally but it seems unlikely that it could be significantly worse than the all too apparent results our continued occupation is currently generating.

On a related note, I posted the funniest quote of the day at Newshoggers.

And then there was chaos...

By Libby

Kevin Drum posts one of the best pieces I've ever seen on why we should withdraw from Iraq. Read the whole thing, it's not that long but here's some key grafs.

Needless to say, this is nonsense. Israel has fought war after war in the Middle East. Result: no regional conflagration. Iran and Iraq fought one of the bloodiest wars of the second half the 20th century. Result: no regional conflagration. The Soviets fought in Afghanistan and then withdrew. No regional conflagration. The U.S. fought the Gulf War and then left. No regional conflagration. Algeria fought an internal civil war for a decade. No regional conflagration.

I think it's worthwhile for proponents of withdrawal to be honest about the likely aftermath of pulling out: an intensified civil war that will take the lives of tens of thousands and end in the installation, at least in the short-term, of an Iran-friendly theocracy. This is obviously not a happy outcome, but neither is it the catastrophe the Chaos Hawks peddle. The alternative is to babysit the civil war with American troops, spilling blood and treasure along the way, without truly affecting the course of events in any substantial measure.

Politically, this is the key battleground now. As long as the Chaos Hawks are able to panic the public into believing that withdrawal will result in a Middle East in flames and ten dollar gasoline at home, no Congress will have the backbone to defund the war and force a pullout. This means that it's time for more sensible regional professionals to screw up their courage and tell the truth: pulling out won't be pretty, but if it's done prudently neither will it be Armageddon. The sooner we figure this out, the sooner we can leave Iraq.

I still have my doubts that it would be as bad as people are predicting. It's already so horrible I don't see how it could get all that much worse. However, I'm certainly willing to acknowledge it's a sobering possibility. But as Kevin notes at the end, "It's way past time for us to start formulating a sane national security policy for an age of terror. Leaving Iraq is the first step."

[cross-posted to The Reaction]

Talking Turkey

By Libby

I've always wanted to go here myself. Michael van der Galien is back from vacation and sings the praises of Turkey, both as a tourist destination and as a residence. The photos aren't his own but still capture a bit of the majesty of the antiquities of the East.

If you love to travel as much as I do, take a look and see if you don't feel like booking a ticket on the next flight to Istanbul.

Arms and The Man

By Libby

The Bush administration appears to have solved the problem of not having enough ready troops to cause permanent conflict quell the chaos in the Middle East. George apparently woke up in the middle of the night, slapped himself upside the head and said, " I know! Let's give all of them guns and see what happens." How else to explain this move?

The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

Yeah that would be the same Saudi Arabia that was the home of the bulk of the 9/11 perps and the very same country we've discovered is aiding and abetting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. Hard to argue with the logic of that, since there is none. But that's not all. It gets better. We're also arming civilians.

The U.S. military in Iraq is expanding its efforts to recruit and fund armed Sunni residents as local protection forces in order to improve security and promote reconciliation at the neighborhood level, according to senior U.S. commanders.

Within the past month, the U.S. military command in charge of day-to-day operations in Iraq ordered subordinate units to step up creation of the local forces, authorizing commanders to pay the fighters with U.S. emergency funds, reward payments and other monies.

The initiative, which extends to all Iraqis, represents at least a temporary departure from the established U.S. policy of building formally trained security forces under the control of the Iraqi government It also provokes fears within the Shiite-led government that the new Sunni groups will use their arms against it, commanders said.

Gee, you think? And I suppose there's no possibility they might also use them against our troops too. Talk about your pony plans.

Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, estimates that he needs up to 6,000 new police officers and 18 more police stations in Rasheed. "I am looking for a group of loyal Iraqis who will carry weapons and go after the same people we want," he said in an interview. "We will teach them U.S. rules of engagement and tell them to capture them, not kill them," he said. He said some of the men coming forward may have worked with insurgents in the past in order to survive.

Yeah, and I'm looking to win the Powerball lottery and retire to the Carribean in the next two weeks. That ain't going to happen either. I'm reminded of that old saying that goes something like, shoot anything that moves and let God sort out the dead.

On the upside, Bush won't be stuck with the legacy of having created a quagmire in the Middle East. He can take credit for a full-scale disaster. That sounds so much more macho, doesn't it?

Time for a Section 12*

By Libby

There's stupid, pig-headed stubborness like refusing to admit mistakes and desperate cluelessness like clinging to small moments of success that don't amount to any sort of victory. There's failure to accept reality like avoiding news reports that don't fit a preconceived scenario and there's deliberate deceit like knowingly telling outrageous lies even as the glaring truth makes a mockery of the words.

And then there is flat out bat shit crazy.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Forget impeachment or frogwalking out of the White House. What we need is the men in white coats to take him away and get this man some badly needed treatment for a complete mental breakdown.

I've been thinking for some time that so many administration insiders have been speaking up against the Commander Guy not just out of political expediency in running from a lame duck, but also because they know he's having a mental breakdown and have a genuine fear of what insane measures he might take in his remaining months in office. That quote pretty much seals it as far as I can see.

[*Section 12 is a term used in Masschusetts courts for involuntary commitment to a mental health facility for the criminally insane.]

[thanks to Liberty Street, Blue Collar Heresy and World Gone Mad for the links]

Big Daddy diplomacy

By Libby

You know until we invaded Iraq, I've mostly avoided talking about the Middle East, particularly Arab-Israeli politics, for most of life. I've never been able to make sense of how it works. For instance, I just don't get this.

The Bush administration has given Israel permission to discuss the future of the Golan Heights, security arrangements and Israeli-Syrian peace accords if it agrees to talks with Syria.

However, Washington has stipulated that Israel must not agree to any negotiations, even indirectly, on the United States' position, or on the future of Lebanon.

Furthermore, Israel must not make promises to Syria regarding U.S. policy. According to the new position, Washington will deal directly with Syria on these matters.

Why the hell should a soverign country need our permission to engage in its own diplomacy and why would they be negotiate on our behalf in the first place? We both have our own state departments and while we certainly share common interests, we hardly have the exact same set of concerns.

Not that this administration doesn't appear to need some help. Washington claims it will deal directly, but about what?

Syria's role in terrorism, the presence of terrorist organizations in Damascus and its involvement in smuggling weapons to Hezbollah and the Palestinian territories are currently issues which the U.S. is not discussing with Damascus.

Iran and its military connection with Syria is also not a topic that is open to discussion at present.

What does that leave to discuss? The weather? Shopping? Maybe the dinner menu? And of course our heavy handed edicts go both ways.

During a recent visit to Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded forcefully when the issue of Assad's call for a resumption of negotiations with Israel was raised.

"It is best that you avoid even exploring this possibility," she said.

Am I the only one who's reminded of the politics of grammar school when you couldn't be Sally's friend if you wanted to be Jane's friend too, because Jane was mad at Sally? There was always that one manipulative, bossy kid in the group that instigated trouble but as I recall everyone got along fine when she was absent from school. How different is that really from these absurd machinations?

Rice intends to invite Syria as well as Palestinian representatives and Israel to an international summit on the Arab-Israeli conflict, according to a plan being drafted by the U.S. State Department.

If this occurs, the American position regarding possible talks between Israel and Syria will no longer be relevant.

The real question is why is it relevant in the first place? It seems to me the international community could go a long towards resolving the current turmoil by simply telling the White House to take a flying leap and ask America to call them when they get some grown-ups back in office.

Screw the experts

CNN collects their stable of doomsayers disguised as experts to warn against the dire consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. They basically preach there's no way out. According to these guys we have to stay pretty much forever in order to avoid a "full scale civil war."

Bloody hell. These are the same guys who wouldn't admit the greater part of the violence in the country was sectarian for months and months after it was painfully apparent to even the least informed observer. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't these the same experts that were predicting for the last four years that everything would be fine in just another Friedman unit or two? Come to think of it, weren't at least some of them predicting how easy it would be before the invasion?

These are the same sort of experts that predicted dire consequences from leaving Vietnam. Yeah, the transition wasn't pretty but it didn't turn out as badly in the end as they proclaimed it would then either. The truth is, no one really knows what will happen when we leave and these experts stand to gain more if we stay. At the least their punditry services will be higher demand.

Personally, I trust my gut instinct over the pompous predictions of experts any day and my gut tells me things have gone from bad to worse in the last four years. Nothing we're doing there has made life better for the average Iraqi and it has already destabilized the Middle East. Our Imperial President royally screwed this mission up and staying as an occupying force is only delaying the inevitable upheaval. It won't be any less ugly a transition in ten years than it would be in ten months.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Iraqis will never be able to stand on their own as long as we're holding their hand. I find it incomprehensible that the reason we can't leave is because in four years their government has only managed to muster "120,000 Iraq soldiers now classified as trained by the U.S. military in Iraq, along with 135,000 police force members." And this doesn't lead me to believe that they have any incentive to speed up the process.

[T]he head of the Iraqi ground forces, Gen. Ali Ghiran-Majeed, recently told CNN that some of his soldiers don't even get paid, and that on any given day one quarter of the force is on vacation.

Our soldiers are on their second and third extended tours of duty and routinely recalled early. We're sending back soldiers with serious injuries while a quarter of the Iraqis own forces are on perpetual vacation? Does that even make sense? I mean, whose country is it anyway?

When we're fighting harder for their freedom than they are themselves, it's time for us to go home.