Good Versus Evil Isn't a Strategy

Madeleine Albright has a good article in the LA Times titled "Good Versus Evil Isn't a Strategy" about Bush's "Manichean" foreign policy stance, and how it is hurting the U.S. (link here).

I'll let you read the article yourself, but there was an interesting response from the neoconservatives over at WeeklyStandard.com (link here). The first half of the response is nothing but sarcastic comments about how the Clinton administration failed to really stabilize the world, and how 9/11 was really all Clinton's fault. I'm no fan of Clinton, but this kind of sarcastic political reaching is pathetic. In addition, do Bush supporters really want to compare Clinton's accomplishments (even if meager) with the disaster Bush has brought upon the world?

The part of the response I'm most interested in is in response to Albright's advice to Bush on Iran. In an attempt to paint Albright as either a "flip-flopper" or as someone who should support regime change in Iran, the response questions Albright's statement that belligerence towards Iran will make regime change more difficult there because the population will rally behind their extremist president. What the Weekly Standard wants to know is, why did Albright openly support regime change in Iraq if she says it is counterproductive in Iran? As is typical of neoconservatives, the Standard fails to realize that Iran is not Iraq, and that there was little risk of the Iraqi people rallying behind Saddam the brutal dictator. This, however, is not the case in Iran, where the president was elected and enjoys popular support. Once again neoconservatives' black-and-white, over-simplified view of foreign policy leads them to ridiculous conclusions.

Unreasonable Searches and the Supreme Court

In an important Supreme Court decision, a 5-3 split in which a liberal/moderate majority won out, the Court ruled that police cannot search a home without a warrant if one resident consents while another resident (who is present at the time of the search) does not consent to the search (LA Times story here). Chief Justice Roberts, who was joined by conservative justices Thomas and Scalia, wrote a "strong dissent" in favor of such searches being allowed. Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion, and argued that (as paraphrased in an LA Times article),

"'No sensible person' would think he was free to enter a house if one of its two occupants stood in the doorway and said, 'Stay out.'"

It still strikes me as odd (despite this being the most common outcome in such debates) that the supposedly "small government" justices were those in favor of such strong state powers here, while the "big government" liberals were those defending the sanctity of private property rights and privacy against government intrusion. To those who claimed that Roberts would unreasonably favor strong executive powers, this case provides an example of such bias. Whether or not Roberts' court will be defined by such pro-executive sentiment is yet to be seen, but this case offers some hope in that Roberts was not able to rally a majority to support his views of (overly) strong executive powers.

Those Silly Lying Bastards at National Review

I have stumbled across a perfect example of the sort of shameless fearmongering and blatant lying that is being employed by conservative writers in discussing the situation with Iran (link here). Naturally, this piece of trash comes from National Review:

ElBaradei says that if Iran starts enriching uranium--something it gives every signal of intending to do--it could have a bomb within months.

While technically true, this statement is such an absurdly contorted form of the "truth" so as to have no relation to any clear statement of what is actually going on in Iran. In fact, it gives the opposite impression regarding the danger Iran poses, simply because it omits a very very relevant fact: Iran does in fact send signals that it intends to begin enriching uranium, however, according to a consensus in the U.S. intelligence community, it will take Iran about 10 years to perfect and employ the technology that will allow them to begin enriching uranium. So, National Review leaves you with the impression that Iran can have nuclear weapons within a few months from now, when in fact they can have nuclear weapons a few months from some unspecified point in the far, far future when they have enrichment facilities. So much for National Review ever telling the truth.

A Disturbing Anti-Muslim Trend

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 there has been a relatively high level of anti-Muslim sentiment among the American and European populations. There is of course good reason to oppose terrorists and those who support them, however recent trends have seen anti-Muslim sentiment reaching far beyond reasonable opposition to violent extremist Muslims.

Consider for example the recent op-ed piece in the respectable Washington Institute, written by Martin Kramer and titled "Islam's Coming Crusade" (link here). In the article, Kramer claims that the general Muslim population is so extremist that a "Clash of Civilizations" a la Samuel Huntington (who Kramer calls a "prophet") will most probably be initiated by Muslims in an attempt to conquer all of the Western world. As evidence of the threat Muslims pose, Kramer cites the "cartoon riots", in which he claims millions of Muslims showed their real love of violence and hatred of the West. He says that while 9/11 could be attributed to an extremist minority, the large protests were evidence that a large majority of Muslims are violent and virulently anti-Western.

What Kramer fails to recognize, which is well explained here, is that out of one billion Muslims in the world, only a tiny minority of uneducated, poor Muslims in third world countries actually rioted. To take this as evidence of the evil intentions of every Muslim or even a majority of Muslims is nothing but pure anti-Muslim prejudice, on par in its ridiculousness with the virulent anti-Semitism that still plagues the world. Lets hope more rational voices will prevail and the growing trend of anti-Muslim sentiment won't become strong enough to become as destructive as anti-Semitism became in the 20th century.

Kurtz and Government Control of Society

Stanley Kurtz, in an article on National Review Online, writes about the dangers presented by the new HBO series "Big Love", which portrays the life and struggles a polygamist family (link here). To Kurtz -- and no doubt also to other social conservative types -- such programs constitute a danger to society in that they threaten to undermine traditional structures that have long defined family and relationships.

I have no problem with Kurtz taking issue with the program or its moral message, however in his complaints he betrays a very totalitarian view of how society should be constituted. First off, Kurtz takes issue with how the show portrays polygamists as real people with real problems and personalities, as no doubt he knows that this will work against the attempts of him and his ilk to slander all those in "unconventional" relationships -- from homosexuals to polygamists -- as disgusting hedonistic monsters or backwards perverts.

Kurtz is also upset by talk of decriminalizing polygamy, and repeatedly expresses disgust at the idea that people might be able to live their lives as they see fit, loving whoever they choose. Implicit in all this is that someone should determine which kinds of relationships are acceptable, and that anyone straying from the norm should be punished as criminals. Kurtz betrays a deep-seated contempt for human freedom, and obviously believes that government should take an active role in imposing certain lifestyles on the American populace. He of course shares this totalitarian tendency with a large swath of the conservative movement, which is all the more worrisome when one considers the potential for great evil if the so-called "moral majority" can mobilize sufficiently to enact more stringent, anti-freedom, puritanical laws.

Allawi Calls Iraqi Conflict a Civil War

In a statement marking the third anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq, Iraqi ex-prime minister and pro-western darling of the Bush administration Iyad Allawi stated,

"We are losing each day an average of 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is. Iraq is in the middle of a crisis. Maybe we have not reached the point of no return yet, but we are moving towards this point. We are in a terrible civil conflict now." (story here)

To those in the Bush administration who have vehemently contested any characterization of the conflict in Iraq as a civil war, this statement may be a serious setback in their attempts to present the state of Iraq's security. As the ex-prime minister of the country, Mr. Allawi is in a good position to understand the overall standing of the country, and his statement reflects growing fears regarding the extensive sectarian violence that is devastating the country.

The article at Telegraph.co.uk reporting on Allawi's statement (link above) also included a good insight regarding the debate over whether Iraqi sectarian violence should be called civil war:

"With the situation so appalling, the argument whether a civil war is under way or not can appear to be mere semantics. Indeed, many academic models identify a civil war as an intra-state conflict with 1,000 dead. On those criteria the definition held good a long time ago."

Geopolitical Jihad

Ximena Ortiz, the executive editor of The National Interest journal, has an excellent piece of political analysis over at NationalInterest.org. The piece, called "Geopolitical Jihad" (link here), outlines a nuanced and realistic picture of the motivations and characteristics of modern Islamic extremists, and also provides important insights into the ideals and thought processes of Arab Muslims. She also expertly describes how cultural conceptions and values common among Arabs form their responses to American foreign policy in unexpected ways.

The article is in a league of its own as compared to the mindless blather that passes as political writing in many newspapers. Ortiz gives a great example of how a deep understanding of foreign culture and motives can inform a more realistic and effective foreign policy stance for the United States.

Bush Reaffirms Aggressive Stance, Threatens Iran

President Bush, in a speech two days ago, restated (story here) the importance of his doctrine of "pre-emptive" war against "gathering threats" and "grave dangers" materializing. It is important to note that true pre-emption is entirely contingent on there actually being an imminent threat to interrupt with a pre-emptive attack. Given this, Bush's brand of "pre-emption" is really an affirmation of America's right to attack anyone at any time, with a minimum of justifying rhetoric about "gathering threats".

Judging from recent talk from the White House, this doctrine is being employed again, despite its utter failure in Iraq, against the Islamist regime in Iran. The Bush administration claims that Iran has been working to develop nuclear weapons; Iranian officials claim only to be working towards developing nuclear power, as is their right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Bush also stated that "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." What exactly this "challenge" is, or how it constitutes an imminent threat to the United States, Bush did not make clear. Blustering by Iranian President Ahmadinejad about "wiping Israel off the map" has led many conservative commentators to claim Iran has intentions of using nuclear weapons against Israel. What is never considered by these commentators, however, is exactly why Iran would employ weapons against Israel which would also result in the mass killing of Palestinians who are in such close proximity to Israel. Neither do they address how Iran would justify a nuclear attack against anyone, knowing that such an attack would bring a nuclear firestorm down upon their country in retaliation. Such a policy would be nonsensical and suicidal, and while President Ahmadinejad is certainly an extremist, there is no indication that he is insane enough to follow such a path to destruction.

Saddam's WMD Deception

A recent New York Times article (link here) has revealed that Saddam Hussein informed his generals just three months before the U.S. invasion that Iraq did not possess any unconventional weapons, such as biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. Apparently Saddam's tactic of "deterrence through doubt" was an attempt to deprive enemies of hard evidence of WMD capabilities, while also introducing enough doubt as to their existence to make enemies hesitate before thinking of an invasion.

In an article at RealClearPolitics.com, ex-mayor of New York Ed Koch takes these revelations as a final refutation of the anti-war left's claims that Bush misled the American public in the run-up to war (article here). Koch argues that if even Saddam's closest generals were kept in the dark, there is no way that American intelligence could have known that Saddam had rid himself of WMDs. While this makes sense in describing why it was legitimate to have doubts as to Saddam's compliance in destroying his WMDs, it still leaves Bush's administration guilty of vastly exaggerating their certainty regarding Saddam's programs. Both in Colin Powell's presentation before the UN Security Council, and in many statements by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it was stated that the exact locations and quantities of Saddam's WMDs were known -- this was obviously exaggerated. Bush's administration repeatedly feigned certainty and acted as if they had concrete evidence of large WMD stockpiles in Iraq, and Koch completely ignores this in pleading Bush's innocence in the matter. Contrary to Koch's demands, those who opposed the invasion need not apologize -- it is the President who should answer for his behavior in starting the war in Iraq.

Xenophobia and Ignorance Run Amok

The Strata-Sphere blog has a good post on the growing idiocy of Congress in its fear of all things foreign (link here). I didn't think I would ever say something like this but right now, at least as far as not falling prey to the fanatical wave of anti-Muslim ignorance that is sweeping the nation is concerned, President Bush is among the most rational and thoughtful voices in government.

Of course the President played a large roll in bringing about the atmosphere of fear in which this ridiculousness has arisen, however it seems he is now backing off his previous fear-mongering and attempting to bring Americans back to some semblance of civilization. In Congress, both Democrats and Republicans have totally failed to fight this fanatical nationalism and xenophobia, and have instead embraced it to score easy political points. As should be expected, the talking heads on the radio and television have for the most part embraced the lunacy, with the moron king of intolerance, Michael Savage, leading the barbaric march.

This ignorance is reminiscent of 1940s fascist nationalism and the blind hatred that seized Americans during WWII (which lead to the mass detention of Japanese-Americans) and has no place in the 21st century. If America is going to avoid seriously harming its image in the world, and if we want to avoid this idiocy becoming permanently enshrined in some sort of legislation reflecting this atmosphere, reasonable people have a responsibility to fight this growing mob-mentality hatred, lest it do any serious, long-term harm.

Feingold vs. Reality

Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) will ask Senate to censure the president for his role in establishing the unconstitutional and illegal NSA eavesdropping program. Quoth Feingold: "The president must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality." (story here)

Held accountable? Oh Feingold you silly, naive man, that isn't how things work here in America. Bush can do whatever he wants, and never be held accountable. In fact, the only thing he's been held accountable for so far was (gasp) not being sufficiently racist, anti-Muslim and xenophobic for the American people, by supporting the Dubai Ports World deal. I guess someone has to point out that the emperor has no clothes, but sadly, anyone who points out the obvious truth just ends up looking silly doing it. Yes, sadly, this country is that far gone.

That Liberal Media

Apparently the president of Iraq is now in league with the dreaded "liberal media" that are so far out of touch with events on the ground in Iraq -- he had the audacity to claim that Iraq is sliding towards a civil war (link here). Of course the conservative ideologues back in the U.S. know what's going on better than the president of Iraq... (/sarcasm)

Now can we stop the retarded complaining about the liberal media "inventing" a civil war in Iraq? Sadly, I seriously doubt reality will impact too greatly on the hallucinatory, fanciful musings of the "Iraq is a free, thriving democracy" crowd.

72 Percent of Troops Say Leave Iraq This Year

I guess the American troops are now fanatics and are run by far-left elements, just like John Murtha?

It's time to admit that the Bush administration is insane, and that taking a stance opposite them is guaranteed to be the right thing at least 9 out of 10 times.