Two excellent essays in The Nation

The 25 January 2010 issue of The Nation features two superb essays from two especially enlightened sources: Fawaz Gerges (on "The Transformation of Hamas") and Henry Siegman (on "Imposing Middle East Peace").

Gerges is professor of Middle Eastern politics and international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science at the University of London, and a well-published and highly respected expert on jihadist and Islamist groups who has spent time with such groups in the field, "on the ground." His essays (most recently, one on al-Qaeda in Yemen) regularly appear via CNN as well - much to CNN's credit.

Siegman is "director of the U.S./Middle East Project in New York and a visiting research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He is a former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America."  With credentials as a defender of the interests of the Jewish community in the US that are truly impeccable, for years he has looked the Israeli occupation of the West Bank squarely in the face and called it out for what it is (for example, in this London Review of Books essay published a year ago).

Would that Obama (and presidents before him) would have taken their prescriptions to heart.

LA Times/AP's Misguided Report on Hamas-al Qaeda Ties

I keep trying to get back to work on the last chapter of my book, but am too often distracted by reports such as this one.

Lolita Baldor of the AP reports - with the headline in the LA Times: "Palestinian militant groups aspire to formal ties to al-Qaida, but so far rebuffed."

OK, it's pretty well known that there are some universal-jihadist groups among Palestinian militants.  It's also well known that Hamas is an Islamist nationalist group.  Nonetheless, says Baldor,

"Osama bin Laden's terror network has so far snubbed Hamas and its offshoots for infighting and failure to prove their global jihadist intentions, a new study says."

But, where is there any evidence that Hamas has even reached out to OBL and al-Qaeda?  There isn't any.  How then could al-Qaeda "rebuff" Hamas? 

Oh, and guess who the report's authors are?  Matthew Levitt and Yoram Cohen, under the auspices of that fair-and-balanced thinktank, WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy - AKA, Likud-USA).  Cohen, by the way, as Baldor does note (bless her heart) until recently served as the deputy director of the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet.  No agendas here.

Well, too late; damage done.  A lot of LAT readers will now conclude that Hamas really wants to link up with al-Qaeda, even though (farther down in Baldor's report) it's made pretty clear that there's a real disconnect between Hamas and the smaller jihadist groups in Gaza.  Nonetheless, according to the tenor of  Baldor's take on the WINEP report, it's only a matter of time before al-Qaeda lets the Gaza militants (which, she's already insinuated, include Hamas) join the club.

So for many impressionable readers, the only reasonable conclusion now is: the Israelis are justified if they want to launch Cast Lead II.

Inspiring Essay about Tony Judt

I ran across this article from the CHE's "Chronicle Review" serendipitously, with no knowledge that Prof. Tony Judt, whose work I have read and admired for years (especially for the courage of his stance against Zionist extremism), is as ill as he evidently is.  As the article attests profusely, his courage extends to how he is coping with that illness.

(Not as uplifting, unfortunately, are some of the comments from the Judt-haters (who also appear to be Arab-haters and Islamophobes) who decided to weigh in - one of them with a "good riddance" comment.)

Did John McCain just put his foot in it?

Among the other developments reported in today AfPak Daily Brief from Foreign Policy come the report that John McCain (and his trusty Tonto Mini-Me Joe Lieberman) have endorsed, out loud, US drone strikes inside Pakistan.  OK, those strikes are indeed an open secret, but as the FP comments note, the US does not acknowledge them officially, and the Zardari government has repeatedly taken public issue with the Obama government about the US's continued flaunting of Pakistan's sovereignty with them.

For McCain to be so brazen about it may be another notch in his personal "straight-talk express" belt, but it's hardly to be chalked up as a shining moment for US public diplomacy.

And Now for a Little Business

With Valentine's Day approaching, here's a gift idea for you.  This outfit got a nice notice in the Detroit Free Press recently.  (Full disclosure: One of the owners is my sister Ursula.)

Iraq De-Baath commission bans Sunni party from March elections

According to McClatchy's Inside Iraq blog, the government's de-Baath commission "banned Sunni politicians and their political blocs from participating in Iraq’s national elections due in March."  One of the politicians banned, Saleh al Mutlak,

is heading a parliamentary bloc that won more than 11 seats out of 275 in 2005 elections and was part of a committee that wrote the current Iraqi constitution. Al Mutlak is a part of a one of the main political blocs, Iraqiya, headed by Iraq’s former prime minister, Ayad Allawi, who threatened to boycott the elections if the ban was proved.

You can bet that General Odierno's office - and the White House - are seeking "clarification."  But an action such as this is going to rile up thousands of already riled-up Sunni Arabs, many of whom (those among the Sunni Awakening/sons of Iraq groups) have been getting hammered by the predominantly Shii-Kurd government for months.  If the Sunnis don't get a fair shake in the March elections, there will be trouble - count on it - with corresponding pressure on Obama (I'm thinking John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Lindsay Graham) to slow the US withdrawal.

Reporting from the New Surge

The NYT's Alissa Rubin today has a report that that spotlights much of what's oh-so-wrong about the US surge in Afghanistan:

• resentment of the locals.  As US troops were throwing candy to the locals, a bomb went off, killing 5 Afghans (and wounding some Americans as well).  The locals are accusing the Americans of doing the bombing.  Of course, that's not what happened, but the point is that a lot of the locals believe it is and resent the US presence.
• a US Special Forces operation stole its way into a village and "took out" a Taliban commander and his guards.  I'm sure McChrystal and the special-ops guys are bristling with pride, but I wonder how the locals feel about Americans who sneak in and shoot up people.
• Joe Lieberman and John McCain are briefly on the scene, uttering words of sweet reassurance that we will "succeed" in Afghanistan just as we "succeeded" in Iraq, if we can only stay the course.

The course to what?  What is success going to look like?  And (as Andrew Bacevich recently asked, channeling David Petraeus' question early on during the Iraq invasion), can Joe and John tell us how this ends? 

Perhaps, with our military, our treasury, and whatever's left of our standing in the international community, trashed?  (see Doug Bandow's recent piece in The National Interest)

And if you're not yet convinced that what's happening in Afghanistan is related to broader developments - say, in Gaza - take note of the report in Haaretz (citing the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi ) that Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian physician who blew up the CIA operatives in Afghanistan, was furious about Israel's attack into the Gaza Strip last year and was also running a medical clinic in a Palestinian refugee camp.  The report also notes that

According to a statement posted on Islamist websites, the attack avenged the deaths of Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban leader killed by a US missile strike in August, as well as the deaths of Abi Saleh el-Somali and Abdullah el-Libi.

The two other Taliban commanders were killed in a drone attack in Pakistan's North Waziristan region in December.

Those dots really aren't all that difficult to connect, are they?

Afghanistan Counter-insurgency and Poor US Intelligence

Both the Washington Post and The Nation's Dreyfuss Report today spotlight a new report from Major Gen. Michael Flynn, "the deputy chief of staff for intelligence for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan" and "highest-ranking U.S. military intelligence officer in Afghanistan," calling for

a shift from collecting information to help with capturing or killing insurgents, and said more resources should go toward gathering facts about the political, economic and cultural environment of the population that supports the insurgency.

Bravo!

But as the WaPo report also hints at, who's gonna do it?  Notably, at least some small-unit commanders have assigned such fact-gathering to their own soldiers in the absence of specialists trained for the task.  It will bear watching to see if Flynn's recommendations are implemented, and how.  But if they are, and the job is indeed going to be handed off to young "grunts," it seems to me that its going to demand a significant shift in the US military culture - how soldiers are trained, or at least "oriented" - before they deploy to Afghanistan.

Unless my impressions are completely mistaken, their training has focused almost entirely on learning how to "engage and defeat" (i.e., kill) the enemy. What Flynn is recommending will require a less coercive approach to "engagement," I should think - perhaps something more akin to how British troops approached their engagement with the locals in Iraq's Shii south, where they were deployed from 2003 until their departure.  As I recall, the US commanders were not especially enamoured of that approach, even if the US adopted a version of it during the Petraeus-led "Surge" in 2007.

As Yemen Jumps onto our Radar . . .

Kudos to Ken Silverstein at Harper's Mag for this brief note that points us to some good sources for info - and continued reporting - about Yemen.  Among them, the "always interesting" Professor Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy as well as a primer from Michelle Shephard at The New Republic.

But I was especially happy to learn about the blog Waq al-Waq, published by Gregory Johnsen (a former Fulbright Fellow in Yemen and currently a Ph.D. candidate in Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University) and Brian O'Neill (a former writer and editor for the Yemen Observer and currently an independent analyst in Chicago).  Silverstein's piece links to this entry - What to do in Yemen: Five Basic Suggestions - and the blog in general looks to be very promising as the US wades into the new morass that Yemen is on the way to becoming.  The authors seem to know the region well, know Arabic, and propound a mission statement that grabs one's attention:

We both have been studying Yemen for years, and as the country has risen in importance, the quality of discussion has declined. We wanted to contradict some other individuals, blogs and commentators who have no experience in Yemen or with Arabic, and who turn the facts to fit their opinions. We feel that presenting a thoughtful and nuanced discussion of Yemeni affairs, based in knowledge of its history and culture is in the best interest of all.

Terrorist Attacks Widen Pakistan's Fault-lines

The WaPo's Pamela Constable reports from Karachi on how a terrorist attack on a Shii religious procession has threatened to widen fault lines between ethnic and sectarian communities there.

With one strategic blast, the attackers added a volatile new ingredient to the cauldron of ethnic and sectarian tensions, political brawls, business mafia rivalries, and street crime that simmers in this metropolis of 18 million. Although these conflicts periodically erupt into violence, they have rarely disrupted the purposeful hum or resilience of city life.

This time, the destruction triggered by the explosion was so shocking and affected so many interest groups that the entire city went on strike Friday, uniting in an act of peaceful protest. The normally clogged boulevards and teeming bazaars were silent; the swank seaside eateries were empty. Even the Karachi stock exchange shut down instead of grandly opening for New Year's Day. . . .

With few solid facts emerging, the devastation has also provided tinder for conspiracy theories to suit the agendas of every religious, ethnic and political group in the complex, fragile mosaic of Karachi society. They range from accusations of economic sabotage by property owners to wild speculation of international plots by Western and anti-Muslim powers.

Some groups have accused Shiite militants of using their holy day to create chaos, saying fire accelerants were hidden inside religious cloths. Shiite leaders insist that most mourners continued with their procession after the bombing, while the looting and arson broke out many blocks behind. They assert that the attackers were trying to provoke sectarian divisions among Shiites and Sunnis, backed by a conspiracy of Western interests.

Doesn't this sound eerily familiar to Iraq, starting in 2004?  How terror attacks ratcheted up distrust between communities with already long histories of mutual grievance, leading eventually to the Sunni bombing of the Shii al-Askariya mosque in Samarra, which led to what was essentially a civil war that left tens of thousands dead?  Iraq has never truly recovered from that time, at least from the standpoint of trust being restored between Shii and Sunni.

And Pakistan seems to have at least as many potential fault-lines as does Iraq: among them, Sunni v. Shii, as well as regional/ethnic lines involving Pashtuns, Punjabis, Baluchs, Sindhis, Mohajir.  As Constable's report indicates, there surely are many in Pakistan who want to preserve ethnic unity.  But in 2004, there were many in Iraq of similar good will.

Why Won't Those Terrorists Just Leave Us Alone?!

Glenn Greenwald in Salon, citing both David Brooks (in what is indeed one of his better columns) and John Adams (an unlikely pair, that), pens an excellent essay on how the mainstream media (in cahoots with the Cheneyesque element in the Homeland Security crowd) have created a

citizenry planted in front of the television, petrified by endless imagery of scary Muslim monsters, who then collectively crawl to Government and demand that they take more power and control in order to keep them Protected and Safe.  A citizenry drowning in fear and fixated on Safety to the exclusion of other competing values . . . .

And according to a recent poll,

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day. . . . Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.

So, like bleating sheep being herded by an all-powerful shepherd, Americans have gone along with their government in a misguided war in Iraq, and now with a misguided war in "Af-Pak"  (and perhaps Yemen's on the horizon?) because the government tells them that only the might of the US military can protect them from the big bad Muslims.   And Mr. Bush told them, "Go out and buy what you want.  Meanwhile, we'll spend whatever we need to.  But we won't dare tax you or ask you to sacrifice one iota of your American way of life!  After all, we're the great Christian nation that saved the world from Hitler, and Tojo, and the Commies, and Saddam's WMDs.  We're entitled to live as large as we want!  So, build yourself that Mcmansion!  Buy yourself that SUV!"

So, wanting to remain safe, secure, and obese in our bubble,  we've amassed a huge debt to China and have thrown mega-billions of bucks at a military that is nonetheless overstretched and exhausted, but always ready to accept our tax dollars.

Whatever the cost . . .  party on, dude. 

But when the government tries to take the actions - and spend the money - needed to protect their health or their jobs, our clueless public raises a terrified hue and cry.  "Obama's turning us into a Communist country!"  or "Obama's going to set up death panels to decide which of us lives or dies!" or  "Obama's taking away our freedoms!"

(Hey, aren't there some big games in the NFL today?  And what time does that bowl game start tomorrow? Let's drive over to Bill's house.  He just bought a 60-inch screen!")

 (Yemen? Where the hell is Yemen anyhow?  And isn't Gaza somewhere in Iraq?  Ah, who gives a shit.)

Face it, people.  We didn't ante up before.  But now, we're going to need to pay up,  pay for our mistakes,  pay for our ignorance. . . . and if we're lucky, we just may have a future.

Federal Judge Dismisses Charges against Blackwater Mercenaries

Most of us in the US have been exposed to enough TV series about lawyers and the court system (e.g., "Law and Order") to understand that in many instances when the technicalities of the law are enforced, the broader interests of justice are nonetheless not served.

As both the NYT and the WaPo have reported, Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of Federal District Court in Washington has ruled to dismiss the charges against five former Blackwater "security contractors" (i.e., mercenaries, guns for hire).  If you don't recall, these are the same guys who in 2007 shot up a public square in Baghdad and left 17 Iraqis dead about 20 wounded.  As the NYT also notes,

The guards could not be prosecuted under Iraqi law because of an immunity agreement that had been signed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the governing authority installed by the United States after the invasion of Iraq. [That's very cute, how the NYT puts that.  Let's be blunt: US viceroy Jerry Bremer gave Eric Prince's goons the means to cover their asses against any charges of overstepping the bounds.  Read Jeremy Scahill's book on this.  They tended to be tough-talking thugs with itchy trigger-fingers.] But American prosecutors knew from the beginning that they were facing a difficult task in bringing the case. Complications included the applicability of federal statutes to the guards because they were working overseas at the time for the State Department, and the significant problem stemming from statements the guards gave shortly after the shootings.

In other words, the company these guys worked for got a free pass from the US government, right from the start, to murder Iraqi civilians.  Later, the Justice Department (much to its credit) reconsidered and decided it appropriate to go after some of them. But now,the Blackwater guys are off the hook, and as the WaPo report notes:

Urbina's decision, coming on New Year's Eve, surprised Justice Department officials, attorneys for the guards and relatives of the victims in Baghdad. Many were preparing for a trial, which had been scheduled to start Feb. 1. Jurors were being summoned to appear Jan. 11 as part of a screening process.

The Justice Department can appeal the ruling. But legal experts said it will have a difficult time because Urbina wrote such a detailed opinion and held such long hearings. Prosecutors can also seek a fresh indictment but would be precluded from using any evidence that Urbina ruled was tainted. That would be another tough task because Urbina eviscerated much of the government's case. He also found that many of its key witnesses were badly tainted by the guards' statements, which they had read or heard about in the media.

Meanwhile, the mercenaries themselves are celebrating an unexpected New Year's present.   On Thursday, the president and chief executive officer of Xe [Blackwater's new name, which they undoubtedly adopted in the wake of the Baghdad incident because the Blackwater name had been so tarnished by it], Joseph Yorio, praised Judge Urbina’s ruling in a statement:

“The company supports the judge’s decision to dismiss the charges. . . . From the beginning, Xe has stood behind the hundreds of brave men who put themselves in harm’s way to protect American diplomats working in Baghdad and other combat zones in Iraq. Like the people they were protecting, our Xe professionals were working for a free, safe and democratic Iraq for the Iraqi people.”

The Iraqi government would like to take some kind of action.  Fat chance it will do any good.  Many Iraqis are upset, even if the past 7 years ought to have shown them by now that Iraqis victimized by American wrongdoing can expect no justice from the US.

But we all ought to be ready for that justice to be exacted, by "non-state actors" who have been long motivated by the US's high-handedness when it comes to the lives of Muslims.

An update: Iraqis are indeed angry, and perplexed (to put it mildly) about how the vaunted US justice system could allow this to happen.  General Odierno, on the other hand, holds it up as an example of America's adherence to the "rule of law."

There's "rule of law," General.  And then there's need for justice.  This won't cut it on that score.