Dennis Ross moving to the White House

Thus reports today's NYT. This is not a move designed to build a lot of confidence with either the Arab groups the US needs to reach out to (the Palestinians and the Arab "street," including Hamas and Hezbollah, who simply have to be brought into the tent) or Iran. He is too closely tied to the Israel lobby, and is seen as anything but a fair broker. Note in this report the mention of his new book with David Makovsky, who is a fellow with WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Politics) = Israel's DC think-tank.

Racism among US military in Iraq

Salon today runs an important piece on racism in the US military. The focus is initially on how easy it is now for neo-Nazi white supremacists to enlist in the US army, but by the end of the report the focus turns to US troops in Iraq and the prevalence of racist expressions for Arabs - "sand niggers," towel-heads," "ragheads" (made popular soon after 9-11 by right-wing darling Ann Coulter), and, of course, "hajji" - an expression I've heard used by Iraq vets who've taken a course with me.

Just how pervasive? Get this:

- On the neo-Nazi Web site Blood and Honour, a user called 88Soldier88, wrote in 2008 that he is an active duty soldier working in a detainee holding area in Iraq. He complained about "how 'nice' we have to treat these fucking people … better than our own troops." Then he added, "Hopefully the training will prepare me for what I hope is to come." Another poster, AMERICANARYAN.88Soldier88, wrote, "I have the training I need and will pass it on to others when I get out." . . . .

Carter F. Smith is a former military investigator who worked with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command from 2004 to 2006, when he helped to root out gang violence in troops. "When you need more soldiers, you lower the standards, whether you say so or not," he says. "The increase in gangs and extremists is an indicator of this." Military investigators may be concerned about white supremacists, he says. "But they have a war to fight, and they don't have incentive to slow down." . . . .

"I hate Arabs more than anybody, for the simple fact I've served over there and seen how they live," he tells me. "They're just a backward people. Them and the Jews are just disgusting people as far as I'm concerned. Their customs, everything to do with the Middle East, is just repugnant to me.". . . .

. . .

On NewSaxon.org, a social networking group for neo-Nazis, a group called White Military Men hosts numerous contributors. It was begun by "FightingforWhites," who identified himself at one point as Lance Cpl. Burton of the 2nd Battalion Fox Company, but then removed the information. The group calls for "All men with military experience, retired or active/reserve" to "join this group to see how many men have experience to build an army. We want to win a war, we need soldiers." FightingforWhites — whose tagline is "White Supremacy will prevail! US Military leading the way!" — goes on to write, "I am with an infantry battalion in the Marine Corps, I have had the pleasure of killing four enemies that tried to kill me. I have the best training to kill people." On his wall, a friend wrote: "THANKS BROTHER!!!! kill a couple towel heads for me ok!". . . .

"We don't exclude people from the army based on their thoughts," says S. Douglas Smith, an Army public affairs officer. "We exclude based on behavior." He says an "offensive" or "extremist" tattoo "might be a reason for them not to be in the military." Or it might not. "We try to educate recruiters on extremist tattoos," he says, but "the tattoo is a relatively subjective decision" and shouldn't in itself bar enlistment.. . . . What about something as obvious as a swastika? "A swastika would trigger questions," Smith says. "But again, if the gentlemen said, 'I like the way the swastika looked,' and had clean criminal record, it's possible we would allow that person in." "There are First Amendment rights," he adds.

"Rooting out extremists is difficult because racism pervades the military, according to soldiers. They say troops throughout the Middle East use derogatory terms like "hajji" or "sand nigger" to define Arab insurgents and often the Arab population itself.Racism was rampant," recalls vet Michael Prysner, who served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 as part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. "All of command, everywhere, it was completely ingrained in the consciousness of every soldier. I've heard top generals refer to the Iraq people as 'hajjis.' The anti-Arab racism came from the brass. It came from the top. And everything was justified because they weren't considered people."

Another vet, Michael Totten, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne in 2003 and 2004, says, "It wouldn't stand out if you said 'sand niggers,' even if you aren't a neo-Nazi." Totten says his perspective has changed in the intervening years, but "at the time, I used the words 'sand nigger.' I didn't consider 'hajji' to be derogatory."

But this last reference really surprises me:

Geoffrey Millard, an organizer for Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in Iraq for 13 months, beginning in 2004, as part of the 42nd Infantry Division. He recalls Gen. George Casey, who served as the commander in Iraq from 2004 to 2007, addressing a briefing he attended in the summer of 2005 at Forward Operating Base, outside Tikrit. "As he walked past, he was talking about some incident that had just happened, and he was talking about how 'these stupid fucking hajjis couldn't figure shit out.' And I'm just like, Are you kidding me? This is Gen. Casey, the highest-ranking guy in Iraq, referring to the Iraqi people as 'fucking hajjis.'" (A spokesperson for Casey, now the Army Chief of Staff, said the general "did not make this statement.")

Landslide or Fraud? The Debate Online Over Iran’s Election Results

This is a remarkable collection of postings via the NYT's The Lede blog, including many from inside Iran.

Landslide or Fraud? The Debate Online Over Iran’s Election Results - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

Netanyahu accepts limited Palestinian state.

Thus reports the WaPo today:

Netanyahu accepts limited Palestinian state - washingtonpost.com

Netanyahu is quoted as inviting resumption of negotiations "without preconditions."

Right.

That's as long as the Palestinians

agree to a demilitarized state.
agree that none of the refugees be allowed to return to Israel.
recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. (Must Arab Israelis then relocate to the new Palestinian state?)

No preconditions, huh?

Iran's Political Coup - and What Happens Now?

Hat-tip to Paul Woodward at War in Context (WiC has always been my most reliable go-to source) for headlining this essay from Gary Sick on Iran's political coup:
gary's choices - Iran's political coup

It's a must-read from an experienced Iran hand well familiar with the history and currents of Iran's Islamic revolutionary regime. (And I highly recommend the WiC link today. Paul has posted a number of pieces there dealing with what's happened in Iran.)

I wrote last week (at WiC) about Obama's Cairo speech having a chance to be a difference-maker in Middle East history, but what's just happened in Iran will have a much greater impact, on Iran and the broader Middle East and on US relations with Iran and Israel. Mr. Sick puts it very well:

this election is an extraordinary gift to those who have been most skeptical about President Obama’s plan to conduct negotiations with Iran. Former Bush official Elliott Abrams was quick off the mark, commenting that it is “likely that the engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.” Two senior Israeli officials quickly urged the world not to engage in negotiations with Iran. Neoconservatives who had already expressed their support for an Ahmadinejad victory now have every reason to be satisfied. Opposition forces, previously on the defensive, now have a perfect opportunity to mount a political attack that will make it even more difficult for President Obama to proceed with his plan.

With all of the demonizing of Iran in recent years, one of the things that opponents of that have pointed to is Iran's democratic process - the idea that although the Supreme Guardian does indeed have ultimate authority in the Iranian system, the people do have a strong political voice. (And this has not been an entirely recent feature of Iran's politics. The Iranian Constitutional Revolution of the early 20th-century - which was preceded by popular movements such as the late 19th-century Tobacco Protest - was a watershed in Iran's history.) Now, the electoral coup of 2009 has undercut the arguments of all those who have been advocating patience in dealing with the Iranian leadership, and they have suffered a major blow to their cause. Meanwhile, those who've been advocating a military strike against Iran now have a few more arrows in their quiver. As Sick notes in his piece, neocons in both Israel and the US were hoping for an Ahmadinejad win. It's much easier to scream Hitler and new Holocaust at him (given his record) than at a new, moderate, ostensibly "saner" and certainly less provocative president, which Mousavi likely would have been.

Assuming that the election "results" hold (and there's no reason to think they won't, especially with the Iranian army, Revolutionary Guard, and basij militias siding with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad), we face another 4 years with Ahmadinejad as president of Iran - the political version of a gun with the safety perpetually off when it comes to provocative public statements.

As Iran has progressed with its nuclear enrichment and grown its influence in Iraq, Ahmadinejad's attitude to the US and Israel has been one of, more or less, "in your face" (a basketball expression with which Obama certainly is familiar). In the next few months, a lot - I might venture to say, "world peace" itself (and the lives of thousands) - will be riding on how patient Obama can remain in the face of such provocation, how well he can resist the likely renewed and louder neocon and pro-Likud demands for forcibly imposed regime change in Iran - and, perhaps, how often and how hard the Supreme Guardian in Tehran is willing to yank his president's chain in the next months.

And one more thing: the Supreme Guardian is getting up there in age and is not in the best of physical health, and it's entirely possible that he might pass from the scene during Ahmadinejad's second term, or that, if he weakens, some others among the mullah hierarchy in the Council of Experts and the Council of Guardians might move against him, especially if they sense that Ahmadinejad's provocations (if left unsquelched by the Khamenei) are leading Iran to disaster.

Report: Defeated Ahmadinejad rival arrested in Iran

It's apparent from this report in Haaretz that the Iranian government is facing a crisis. Even if the report of Mousavi's arrest turns out to be inaccurate, it seems clear that the regime will put out whatever stops it needs to pull out in order to crush any incipient revolution.

Report: Defeated Ahmadinejad rival arrested in Iran - Haaretz - Israel News

Are Americans an especially warlike breed?

So, America's history has made Americans an especially warlike people? Hmmm . . .

the large immigration to British North America from the English-Scotch border area, and the subsequent endemic and brutal warfare against the North American Indians, created a political culture in the United States in which failures to respond violently to challenges were seen as the mark of weakness that would lead to predation against the weakling, and in which willingness to fight was part of the duties of a citizen. We are a warlike people. We fought in Iraq because we rise, violently, to violent challenges, and we will remain a warlike people for the foreseeable future.

Ahmadinejad Declared Victor in Iran

Here's the NY Times report - which seems not to include the report now that the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Guardian, has evidently give his blessing to the results. That suggests that it's done, and done. But that does not mean that the results are legit, or that the election was free and fair, and Mr. Mousavi seems determined to contest them. I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for his chances of oveturning the result by any sort of peaceful means - but of such events are revolutions made. Don't be too surprised to see some major civil disturbances in Tehran and elsewhere, of the kind that have already been reported.

Meanwhile. some parties in Israel and among the neocon/AIPAC crowd are relieved. Mr. Ahmadinejad has been a very convenient face of evil for those who insist that Iran means to wipe out and Israel and that Israel (with US backing) ought to go after Iran's nuclear sites. Again, expect a spate of op-eds to that effect over the next few weeks. Mr. Obama's post-Cairo and post-Lebanon glow just got dimmed, considerably.

Ahmadinejad Is Declared Victor in Iran - NYTimes.com

Red Alert: Iran's Election Results (Open Access) | STRATFOR

Red Alert: Iran's Election Results (Open Access) | STRATFOR

Krauthammer and Barack Obama's Messianism

I don't think Mr. Krauthammer likes being relegated to semi-obscurity, now that the neocons are no longer in charge. More of the same old "whatever the USA does is good, because, after all, we are the USA." Because Obama notes for public consumption that the US has made some blunders over the years, Krauthammer reviles him as showing "a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country." Krauthammer rails on about the cruelties that Muslim regimes have imposed upon minorities. Not even a nod toward the thousands killed, maimed, detained, humiliated by the US across the Middle East.

Krauthammer's personal distaste for Obama oozes from this article. For my money, Obama has in his pinkie finger more of a sense of universal human dignity than Krauthammer has ever shown.

Can Obama save Israel from itself?

Excellent piece from Neve Gordon in the Jerusalem Post about the Obama-Netanyahu tussle over the settlements in the West Bank. Gordon makes among others several excellent points:

Obama may be intimating that US policy is that all the West Bank settlements (and by implication, those in the Golan, which Syria must have back if there is to be any peace deal with Israel) are illegal, not just the outposts.

Netanyahu's removal of a couple of tiny outposts recently (which were rebuilt almost immediately) was a dog-and-pony show for popular consumption - not a serious move on his part.

Netanyahu may indeed try to raise fears in both Israel and the US that any serious attempt to dismantle settlements will lead to civil war in Israel.

A recent post on the Mondoweiss site is a propos. It recalled a definition of chutzpah as killing your parents, and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court with the wail that now you're an orphan. Israel knew from the day the first settlement went up in the West Bank that it was going to judged illegal in the eyes of international law; and it has continued to expand those settlements down to this very day. To ask for a pass because to remove them might cause problems is cynical in the extreme - chutzpah indeed - and Obama knows it; as is the idea that removing settlements, or even freezing them, is somehow a "concession" to the Palestinians. It's not a concession; it's justice, and it's the right thing to do.

One more thing to note in Gordon's piece is the quote from the defiant settler who referred to the "nigger" in the White House. I would imagine that if that quote gets some play in the US media and/or the halls of Congress, it's going to cost the settlers some support in the US - as well it should.

More War-mongering from Mr. Bolton

Today's Wall Street Journal has another essay from Bush-era UN rep John Bolton, assessing Iran's possible responses to an Israeli attack to eliminate those nuclear weapons that he and his ilk are oh-so-sure Iran is going to poise at Israel's neck. All in all, says he, the benefits of an attack outweigh the risks. But two things in particular stand out in his essay, at least for me, in terms of effects he either ignores or is clueless about:

1. He makes no mention at all of the human cost of an Israeli attack or of the counter-measures Iran might take. Several people have noted in this regard the possibility of radioactive fallout that would kill thousands of Iranians, as well as people downwind outside Iran. I guess in Bolton's calculations, if Israel is at risk, then all those lives are expendable.
2. He notes that leaders of many of the Arab countries in the region might applaud an Israeli attack on Iran. Yet several of them are on the record as opposing it. And perhaps more to the point here is the probable reaction from their people - many of whom qualify as "subjects" who have no great love for their regimes. An Israeli attack would certainly cause widespread protests against the Mubarak regime in Egypt, King Abdullah in Lebanon, the Saudi regime (and don't forget that Saudi Arabia's oil regions have predominantly Shiite populations who have been recently chafing at the restrictions imposed by the Wahhabi Sunni regime of the Saudi family. Lebanon would likely come apart at its already very loosened seams. As might Pakistan.
   

Make no mistake about it: An Israeli attack on Iran would be catastrophic. It's both sad and appalling that a man who once was one of the more public faces of US foreign policy would be calling for one.