Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

[Via AMERICABlog] The new Iraqi Ambassador to the United States, Samir Sumaidaie, presented his credentials to President Bush yesterday. With him however he brought more than his credentials, he also brought with him a personal story of the quagmire the United States finds itself in Iraq. Mr. Sumaidaie brought with him the story of his cousin’s death at the hands of American Marines.

After meeting with President Bush, the Iraqi Ambassador discussed his cousin’s killing with Wolf Blitzer on CNN:

BLITZER: But even months before the incident in November, you lost a cousin at Haditha in a separate battle involving United States Marines.

SUMAIDAIE: Well, that was not a battle at all. Marines were doing house-to-house searches, and they went into the house of my cousin. He opened the door for them.

His mother, his siblings were there. He led them into the bedroom of his father. And there he was shot.

BLITZER: Who shot him?

SUMAIDAIE: A member of the Marines.

BLITZER: Why did they shoot him?

SUMAIDAIE: Well, they said that they shot him in self-defense. I find that hard to believe because, A, he is not at all a violent — I mean, I know the boy. He was [in] a second-year engineering course in the university. Nothing to do with violence. All his life has been studies and intellectual work.

Totally unbelievable. And, in fact, they had no weapon in the house. They had one weapon which belonged to the school where his father was a headmaster. And it had no ammunition in it. And he led them into the room to show it to them.

BLITZER: So what you’re suggesting, your cousin was killed in cold blood, is that what you’re saying, by United States Marines?

SUMAIDAIE: I believe he was killed intentionally. I believe that he was killed unnecessarily. And unfortunately, the investigations that took place after that sort of took a different course and concluded that there was no unlawful killing.

I would like further investigation. I have, in fact, asked for the report of the last investigation, which was a criminal investigation, by the way.

[Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq] is aware of all the details, because he’s kept on top of it. And it was he who rejected the conclusions of the first investigation. I have since asked formally for the report, but it’s been nearly two months, and I have not received it.

This is a serious charge and you may be tempted to believe that the Ambassador is simply jumping on the Haditha bandwagon to score some political and decidedly undiplomatic points. However, Sumaidaie raised this incident with the United States military nearly a year ago while he was the Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations. In addition to raising the issue with the US military the Ambassador also sent a letter to his colleagues. According to the BBC:

In a letter to colleagues, Mr Sumaidaie explained in detail what happened to his cousin Mohammed al-Sumaidaie on 25 June in the village of al-Sheikh Hadid.

He said Mohammed, an engineering student, was visiting his family home when some 10 marines with an Egyptian interpreter knocked on the door at 1000 local time.

He opened the door to them and was "happy to exercise some of his English", said the ambassador.

When asked if there were any weapons in the house, Mohammed took the marines to a room where there was a rifle with no live ammunition.

It was the last the family saw him alive. Shortly after, another brother was dragged out and beaten and the family was ordered to wait outside.

As the marines left "smiling at each other" an hour later, the interpreter told the mother they had killed Mohammed, said Mr Sumaidaie.

"In the bedroom, Mohammed was found dead and laying in a clotted pool of his blood. A single bullet had penetrated his neck."

The Ambassador’s own story highlights the confused and tragic situation of the United States military in Iraq. The Ambassador is no insurgent sympathizer. He is Western educated and is a supporter of the US military intervention. The killing of the Ambassador’s cousin, the killings in Haditha, and another killing that is also under investigation in Iraq just add to an emerging pattern of civilian killings and intimidation occurring in Iraq.

We have placed a heavily armed fighting force in the middle of a large civilian population who have been declared friendly by our Government. Our military is fighting a largely unseen insurgent force whose weapon of choice is the IED. In this circumstance the easiest target of revenge is the civilian population. It is tempting to kick down doors and interrogate and harass the population to try to gain intelligence about the insurgency. It is the way of heavy-handed counter-insurgency campaigns. It is also the surest way to lose the battle for hearts and minds. We have to ask ourselves if we are doing more harm than good in Iraq. We cannot destroy the village to save it.

The Bush Administration needs to step back and take a good look at its Iraq policy. Instead of writing off Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other atrocities as isolated incidents, it needs to ask itself if our policy in Iraq is leading to these atrocities. Upon examination I think the answer is likely to be yes. Then the question really is, "Are we as a nation willing to accept the loss of our moral authority to further our policy in Iraq?" I know what my answer to that question is; what is yours? Our collective answer as a nation will determine whether the United States withdraws from Iraq or continues down its current path.

On January 13, 1842 a wounded and battered British military doctor, Dr. William Brydon, riding atop a dying horse arrived at the British garrison in Jalalabad. He was the only survivor of the 16,000 strong British Army that was in full retreat from Kabul. The remaining soldiers had been slaughtered by the Afghanis in the snowy mountain passes between Kabul and Jalalabad.

The British discovered in 1842 what every other conquering army has come to learn - that Afghanistan is easily taken but never kept. Since the time of Alexander The Great conquering armies have made forays into Afghanistan only to find that it is the graveyard of occupying armies. Nonetheless in the 19th century the British and the Russians competed for control of Afghanistan in what has come to be known as The Great Game. This Game has always been played with the foreign power installing a puppet regime in Afghanistan, which eventually is destroyed by local forces. As The Great Game has been played out the Afghan distaste of foreign occupiers has grown.

The Great Game continued in the 20th Century with the Americans replacing the British as Russia’s adversary after the Second World War. On Christmas day in 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime. With that action The Great Game between the United States and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was launched in earnest. Over the next 10 years the Soviets unsuccessfully battled an insurgency, the Afghan Mujahideen, backed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The Soviet Army lost over 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan while over a million Afghans lost their lives in the same period. Yet after 10 years of fighting the Soviet Union was unsuccessful in breaking the back of the insurgency. On February 15, 1989 the battered and demoralized Soviet Red Army completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan. The humiliation of the Afghan campaign and the financial strain put upon the Soviet economy by the invasion and occupation played a significant part in the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. The 10-year Soviet occupation also left the economy and society of Afghanistan in tatters.

More than a decade later the United States finds itself as the occupying force in Afghanistan playing The Great Game once again. In response to the attacks of September 11th 2001, on October 7, 2001 the United States launched an aerial bombing campaign in Afghanistan that led to the rapid collapse of the Taliban regime. After the routing of the Taliban the United States installed the government of Hamid Karzai in power. Subsequently an election was held that legitimized the Karzai government.

As in previous occupations of Afghanistan what appeared initially as a routing of the local forces is beginning to appear as anything but that. Over the past few years the seemingly defeated Taliban have regrouped into an ever more potent insurgency. As the Afghan population has soured of the continued foreign occupation the Taliban have regained support as the defenders of Afghanistan. In recent weeks there has been heavy fighting between the American military and the Taliban in the South of Afghanistan. This renewed fighting has led to significant loss of civilian life. With each additional civilian death the United States is rapidly losing hearts and minds in Afghanistan. The inexorable logic of occupation is leading to ever growing resentment of the occupier amongst the local population.

The situation in Afghanistan has become increasingly more volatile. Any act or accident by the United States is now viewed by the Afghans as an act of provocation. In this context the fatal traffic accident in Kabul yesterday involving an American military truck was the spark that was needed to set ablaze Afghan frustration. Yesterday’s riots will undoubtedly be brought under control by the Afghan Government. But by doing so, the Government will inevitably kill or injure Afghan civilians. Any heavy-handed Government tactic will be viewed by the Afghan people with suspicion. The Government will be seen as doing the bidding of the United States. In appealing for calm President Hamid Karzai may have done more harm then good by calling the rioters enemies of Afghanistan:

Karzai, speaking on national television Monday night, condemned "opportunists" for exploiting a simple traffic accident and said people responsible for the violence would be sought and treated severely. "Accidents happen all over the world," he said. "This is not a reason to fight or destroy. Those who have done this are the enemies of Afghanistan." [Emphasis added by me.]

Karzai will be seen more as an American puppet in the aftermath of yesterday’s riots in which Government troops killed up to 20 people. The Washington Post reports on the underlying resentment brought to the fore by the traffic accident:

The riots exposed the bitter resentment that many Afghans harbor toward the U.S.-led military forces that have been stationed here since the Taliban was driven from power. It also reflected the deep ambivalence many Afghan Muslims feel toward the growing Western influence here that includes high fashion and fast-food shops, sprawling aid compounds and even rap music.

The public mood has also been tense since a U.S. airstrike killed at least 16 civilians last week in a village in southern Afghanistan, the scene of heightened fighting this spring. Afghan and U.S. officials blamed Taliban insurgents who had taken shelter in village compounds and then fired at U.S.-led forces.

This is a situation ripe with danger for the United States at a time when it is preoccupied with the worsening civil war in Iraq. The United States and the Karzai Government are in a no win situation. If they allow the rioting and unrest to continue unchecked Kabul and perhaps the rest of the country will become destabilized. On the other hand if the Karzai Government clamps down on the population, as it has begun to do, it will lose any legitimacy it may have and will be seen as a tool of the occupier. Either way the Karzai Government is likely to go the way of other Governments that were installed by occupiers in Afghanistan.

The United States occupation of Afghanistan will come to an end at some time in the future. The only unknowns are whether or not the American military will suffer the fate of previous occupiers and what kind of society the Americans will leave behind in Afghanistan. The Soviets endured 10 years of pinpricks from the Afghan insurgency before the cost of occupation became too great to bear. What will be the breaking point for the United States? The challenge for the United States is to break the cycle of The Great Game and leave behind a functioning Afghan society that does not lead to future interventions and instability. Meeting this challenge requires the United States to be fully engaged not only militarily but also diplomatically. History has shown that foreign militaries have never been able to impose their will on the Afghan people for an extended period of time. If there is a recipe for success in Afghanistan it does not lie in the use of force. With the United States preoccupied in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan promises to slip away toward failure. Urgent attention is required and may not be forthcoming from the Administration of George W Bush. Thus another predictable chapter of The Great Game may be written.

Tim Russert lives in the faux reality created by George W Bush about Iraq. He is apparently convinced that America will stand down when Iraqis get mowed down.

Appearing on CNN’s Late Edition Russert left the comfortable inanity of being a moderator to wade into foreign policy punditry. That led to the following manly exchange between Blitzer and Russert:

BLITZER: He’s trying to balance a realistic assessment. At the same time, he uses the phrase "a turning point," which may or may not happen.

RUSSERT: We do not know if this will be a turning point. The reason is, are there enough young Iraqis who will step forward and say, "I believe in this new democracy. And to prove that, I’m willing to shed my blood and give my life."

It is then and only then can Americans start coming home. That’s the unanswered question. Do the Iraqis believe, across the board, in their government and willing to take on the insurgency without any question? [Emphasis added by me.]

How noble of Russert to offer up the blood of young Iraqis so that Mr. Bush’s war on reality can be won. It would be noble if it reflected even a basic understanding of the situation in Iraq. The Iraq mess moved well beyond a fight between insurgents and Americans a long long time ago. It is now a civil war with militias on all sides carrying out ethnic cleansing, torture and wholesale massacres. In this civil war the American military are merely another militia. But unfortunately for Russert, instead of seeing reality, he has bought hook line and sinker Mr. Bush’s talking points about "suiciders".

Mr. Russert might have benefited by listening to the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Barham Salih, a Kurd, who was on Late Edition before Russert. In a telling exchange Salih balks when Blitzer asks him if the Kurdish militia, the peshmerga, should have to disarm:

BLITZER: The British defense secretary said this on Tuesday. Des Browne said, "Armed militias are widespread and a grave threat to the stability of Iraq and the rule of law. Any government, if it is to survive, must establish a monopoly on the use of force. At the moment the Iraqi government clearly lacks this."

Is the new Iraqi government of Prime Minister al-Maliki taking steps already, right now, to disband, to disarm the various militias?

SALIH: The prime minister made this issue a priority. And this is one of the most difficult issues that will face this government and perhaps this government will be judged by.

We know who the terrorists are. And the terrorists are on one side and the rest of the people of Iraq are on the other. Everybody should be united in tracking the terrorists.

But the issue of organized armed groups who are acting outside the state and outside the law are becoming a serious problem for our politics and our society. And we have to deal with it.

The prime minister has committed to taking serious steps in that direction. And all the key parliamentary blocs are supporting him in this mission.

I cannot say that this will be done easily because we have a serious problem in that context and certainly in certain areas of Iraq. But the prime minister and the government are determined and committed to resolving this issue.

We know that it will be a bit difficult, but we are committed to doing so because without that, there will be no stability in Iraq.

BLITZER: Let me play for you what the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told me last Sunday here on "Late Edition." Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZALMAY KHALILZAD, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: Well, it’s still a challenge, an important challenge.

The prime minister has said, and we agree with him, that those ministries should be occupied by people who are unifiers, that are not people with ties to militias, people who are broadly accepted by the Iraqis.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: This militia issue, clearly a critical issue. I assume you want the Badr militia, the Mahdi militia to be disbanded. What about the Peshmerga?

You’re a Kurd. The Peshmerga is the militia of the Kurds in the north, some 70,000 militia members in the Peshmerga.

Will that be disbanded as well?

SALIH: I’ve just come back from Kurdistan. I was on a short trip to Sulaymaniyah and Erbil. Thank God the situation there is stable and secure because the Peshmergas have been enrolled in the security services, the police.

And in accordance with the Iraqi constitution, there is a provision that every federal region in Iraq can have its regional guards, very much like your National Guards in the United States.

So the Peshmerga is really not an issue in dispute as such. The issue of militias and the issue of bringing in people in charge of the security portfolio that are unifiers and are seen by most Iraqis as competent and non-sectarian will be an important challenge for this government.

And this is why the prime minister really has taken his time and is consulting and consulting. And I hope, at the end of this process, we will bring in people who can do this difficult task. And we’ll deal with the issues of militias by laying ahead of us a road map for rehabilitation and reintegration of these people back into public life of Iraqi politics or Iraqi state.

BLITZER: So let me just press you on this point. So there’s one standard, as you see it, for the Peshmerga, which will be integrated into the new Iraqi security force, another for the Shiite militias, the Badr militia, the Mahdi militia?

Is that what you’re saying? Those militias should be disbanded but not necessarily the Peshmerga?

SALIH: No, I’m not saying that at all. The Peshmerga — and you have to remember the historical context as well. The Kurdistan regional government has been in existence over the last 14 years. And this issue of militias has been dealt with for almost a decade now. That has been dealt with, by and large.

But even with the Iraqi constitution that was ratified a few months back, there is a single provision calling for the establishment of regional guards, very much like the United States, where you have a national guards for the states.

But these, all military units of Iraq, including the Peshmergas or the regional guards of Kurdistan, will be going back to the same chain of command, ending in Baghdad at the ministry of defense and the prime minister.

This is where the crux of the problem in Iraq lies. The Kurds want the Shia and Sunni to disarm. The Shia want the Sunni and Kurds to disarm. The Sunni want the Shia and Kurds to disarm. Iraq has fractured across sectarian lines with each ethnic group with its own militia. A so-called "Unity" Government cannot survive if, as you just heard from the Deputy Prime Minister, each group wants an exception to protect their militias from disarming. This, Mr. Russert and Mr. Bush, is a recipe for a civil war.

Against this backdrop comes an incisive article in The Washington Post written by Nir Rosen. Mr. Rosen has spent nearly two years in Iraq following the disintegration of Iraqi society. His article is a gripping first hand look into the heart of the problem:

Every morning the streets of Baghdad are littered with dozens of bodies, bruised, torn, mutilated, executed only because they are Sunni or because they are Shiite. Power drills are an especially popular torture device.

I have spent nearly two of the three years since Baghdad fell in Iraq. On my last trip, a few weeks back, I flew out of the city overcome with fatalism. Over the course of six weeks, I worked with three different drivers; at various times each had to take a day off because a neighbor or relative had been killed. One morning 14 bodies were found, all with ID cards in their front pockets, all called Omar. Omar is a Sunni name. In Baghdad these days, nobody is more insecure than men called Omar. On another day a group of bodies was found with hands folded on their abdomens, right hand over left, the way Sunnis pray. It was a message. These days many Sunnis are obtaining false papers with neutral names. Sunni militias are retaliating, stopping buses and demanding the jinsiya , or ID cards, of all passengers. Individuals belonging to Shiite tribes are executed.

…

At first, the dominant presence of the U.S. military — with its towering vehicles rumbling through Baghdad’s streets and its soldiers like giants with their vests and helmets and weapons — seemed overwhelming. The Occupation could be felt at all times. Now in Baghdad, you can go days without seeing American soldiers. Instead, it feels as if Iraqis are occupying Iraq, their masked militiamen blasting through traffic in anonymous security vehicles, shooting into the air, angrily shouting orders on loudspeakers, pointing their Kalashnikovs at passersby.

Today, the Americans are just one more militia lost in the anarchy. They, too, are killing Iraqis.

…

The world wonders if Iraq is on the brink of civil war, while Iraqis fear calling it one, knowing the fate such a description would portend. In truth, the civil war started long before Samarra and long before the first uprisings. It started when U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad. It began when Sunnis discovered what they had lost, and Shiites learned what they had gained. And the worst is yet to come. [Emphasis added by me.]

If you still believe that the war in Iraq is about "suiciders" and fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here, read Nir Rosen’s article very carefully. It becomes quite clear that the "progress" made by the Green Zone politicians is restricted to the Green Zone only. On the streets of Baghdad and the rest of Iraq it is the militias who rule and dole out swift justice. With the Badr Brigade, the Mahdi Army and the Peshmerga firmly entrenched with their leaders occupying senior positions in the "Unity" Government; the stage is set for large-scale bloodletting.

I am reminded of the situation in Afghanistan after the Soviet backed Government collapsed in 1992. Then a so-called "Unity" Government was formed with the various militias occupying various ministries of the Government. The "unity" collapsed rather quickly as different warring ministries began to engage in full-scale warfare. The country plunged into anarchy. The result, as everyone knows, came in the form of security and stability provided by a fundementalist group known as the Taliban.

Though there are certainly differences in the internal dynamics of the various groups that exist in Iraq and those that existed in Afghanistan in 1992, the parallels are also quite striking. Afghanistan should serve as a cautionary tale for what can happen when well armed militias are "integrated" into a "Unity" Government. But as long as our leaders are focused on the "suiciders" the lessons of history will be ignored and we will be condemned to repeat the past.

Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of the web…the thrill of victory…and the agony of defeat…the human drama of athletic blogging…this is Mash’s Wide World of Blogs!

Ok, so the Wide World Of Blogs did not die an ugly death last time. It’s back with another installment and getting stronger. Here are today’s worthy reads:

Bloggers Against Torture

I joined Bloggers Against Torture this week in support of Torture Awareness Month. Elendil of Rummy’s Diaries started this growing alliance of bloggers to help focus attention on one of mankind’s ugliest sides. This is a worthy endeavor that I ask all who visit to consider joining.

Grad Student Madness

I discovered this blog through Bloggers Against Torture. Apart from offering insights on Presocratic philosophers (that is, standup comedians), this blog offers some very well written and thought provoking posts. One post I would like to call attention to is a post that discusses the politics of torture. This post is a must read for anyone concerned about the state of affairs these days. I am certain that you will not only be rereading this post many times but you will be referring this post to others. It is a good place to start to spread Torture Awareness.

Goddamn I love America!!

On the other side of the torture debate is Jeremiah Bullfrog of Goddam I love America. Jeremiah loves George W Bush and he loves torture. He is also uniquely skilled in the way of the Ninja. He has declined an invitation from Elendil to join Bloggers Against Torture and has in fact labeled the alliance a bunch of terrorist lovers. He has strong opinions that he inherited from his daddy and he is not afraid of sharing them. He also has uncovered an insidious plot by suicide torturees that must be stopped at all costs. Jeremiah’s torturous ways extend to the (ab)use of the English language, but nonetheless he is worth a read.

Serious Golmal

"Golmal" means "trouble" in Bengali. This is another worthy blog from across the pond spiced with a South Asian accent. He has found what may very well be the secret weapon in the War on Terror - music. Not just any music but music from opposite sides of the religious/political divide. If these guys can rock than the rest of us should be able to roll. (Note, one of the songs is not in English, but I’m not sure it matters. The title of the song translates to "I’m busted" and he is singing among other things about his wandering eyes.)

Jon Swift

Yes, I know he was here last week too. But I can’t help it because this week Jon has whipped out the Race Card and he is not afraid to use it. I also should mention that before you read another book you should read Jon’s book reviews. I have stopped reading books since I started to read Jon’s book reviews and I am sure the reviews will have the same effect on you too.

Enjoy the journey!

The United States Senate voted 78-15 to confirm General Michael Hayden as the new CIA Director. 25 Democrats joined 52 Republicans and 1 Independent in voting to confirm General Hayden. In doing so, the Democrats gave Karl Rove and the Bush Administration the headline they were hoping for when they nominated General Hayden.

The Washington Post website obligingly served up the following as its top news story:

Senate vote gives broad bipartisan endorsement to the architect of NSA’s domestic spying program.

The cowering Democratic response to the Hayden nomination has just needlessly inoculated the Republicans from the charge of violating Americans’ civil liberties by conducting warrantless domestic spying. This is a defeat for the American people and may result in defeat at the polls in November for the Democrats.

The Democrats now have 6 months in which they must grow a backbone. However, if today’s vote is any indication they are steadily digging themselves into the same safe yet futile hole that John Kerry climbed into during the 2004 Presidential elections. Republicans in the Congress and the White House must be doing cartwheels watching the latest act of Democratic Hara-kiri.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has stayed the execution of Mirza Tahir Hussain originally scheduled for June 1st for one month. However, the Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports that Hussain’s brother fears for Hussain’s safety and has asked the jail to protect his life:

 Family members of British national Mirza Tahir Hussain, a murder convict, have requested the administration of Adiala jail to take stringent security steps as they feared for his life.

The convict’s brother Mirza Amjad Hussain in an application to Superintendent of Adiala jail Tariq Babar said he received threats from the family of Jamshed Khan who was killed by Tahir in 1989.

He claimed that his brother (Tahir) might be killed or injured by his rivals in the jail. He requested the jail administration to provide security to Tahir.

In his application, Amjad requested the administration that they had not allowed anyone to meet Tahir, except his relatives.

Amjad told Dawn that “the threats are always there.”

He said his family had been receiving threats for the last 18 years. Amjad quoted the rivals as saying that “we are obligated by our tradition to kill our enemy, even if he gets rescued by courts”.

It is not clear whether the jail will protect Hussain from being killed. The comments of the Deputy Superintendent of the jail are not reassuring:

Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Malik Safdar told Dawn that necessary measures would be taken for the security of Tahir on the verbal request of his brother Amjad on Wednesday.

When asked as to what measures are likely to be adopted for Tahir’s security, the deputy superintendent said: “How is it possible to provide security to a man in an overcrowded jail.”

Another Pakistani newspaper, the Pakistan Observer, has published a chilling editorial about the Hussain case. The editorial appears to condone and advocate the murder of Hussain by family members. It makes no reference to the dubious conviction of Hussain by an Islamic Court after an acquittal by Pakistan’s High Court. If this editorial’s position is shared by those operating the jail and others in a position to harm Mirza Tahir Hussain, then his life is in grave danger. The Pakistan Government needs to assure his safety at this crucial juncture. The Pakistan Government must not allow this man to be murdered in jail days after Musharraf stayed his execution.

The entire bloodthirsty Pakistan Observer editorial is printed below:

Security for jailed UK convict

FAMILY members of British national Mirza Tahir Hussain, a murder convict, have requested the administration of Adiala Jail to take stringent security steps as they feared for his life.

It is quite evident that in case any harm is done to the man at this stage, it will expose the state of affairs in this and other prisons of the country. However, the very fact that the family members of the convict fear for his life in the jail indicates the sad security situation in our jails. It is quite understood that the decision of the President to defer conviction of the murderer for a month has caused resentment and indignation amongst family members and relatives of the poor taxi driver, who was killed by Mirza Tahir Hussain. He committed the horrendous crime in 1989 and the poor heirs of the murdered taxi driver had to wait for 18 long long years to get justice. In the first place, this unduly long period in itself amounts to denial of justice but now that the President has stayed his conviction for a month there are chances that ultimately he might get relief. It is because of this denial of justice that people take the law into their hands and shower bullets on the aggressor right before the trial courts. This shows that the aggrieved parties have no faith in the judicial system. One wonders what promoted the President to make up his mind to stay the execution. In our view, the President has the right to condone sentences but he is not expected to do so in clear disregard to the principles of justice. It is unfortunate that our system has succumbed to foreign pressure so much so that we are also dictated on execution of one individual. If the UK Government or for that matter the President of Pakistan have developed some sort of sympathy for the murderer, then they should also keep in mind the plight of those whose near and dear one was killed by him. [Emphasis added by me.]

May 25th, 2006 will be remembered as the day America acknowledged defeat in Iraq. In a press conference at the White House President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair signaled a humiliating end of the American and British intervention in Iraq that began on March 20, 2003. The pair were a picture of weariness as they repeated over and over again that, in spite of the setbacks, invading Iraq was the right thing to do and that we must "complete the mission." The phrase "complete the mission" has become code for "orderly withdrawal". The American and British mission is no longer about "winning" in Iraq, it is about not "losing" in Iraq.

This is a tragic day for the United States. American military might has been thwarted by a band of determined insurgents and a cabal of shrewd politicians. America has been used by the Islamists in Iraq to do their bidding and now the time has come to be shown the door. A tired Bush and Blair are quoted in The Washington Post as two defeated men:

"Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing," Bush said Thursday evening in a White House news conference with Blair. "Not everything has turned out the way we hoped."

For his part, Blair declared that after a meeting earlier this week with Iraq’s new prime minister, "I came away thinking the challenge is still immense, but I also came away thinking more certain than ever that we should rise to it."

Bush and Blair were asked about mistakes they might have made that they regret now. President Bush acknowledged what the rest of the world has known ever since Bush came into office - that you should "walk softly and carry a big stick" and not the other way around:

In unusually introspective comments, Bush said he regrets his cowboy rhetoric the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks such as his "wanted dead or alive" description of Osama bin Laden and his taunting "bring ‘em on" challenge to Iraqi insurgents.

"In certain pa[r]ts of the world, it was misinterpreted."

Mr. Blair for his part acknowledged what was obvious before the invasion:

Blair regretted the way in which Saddam Hussein’s political allies were purged from the Iraqi military and government soon after the fall of Baghdad. Critics have said the sudden purge left a security vacuum in Iraq and encouraged former regime loyalists to take up arms against the newly installed government.

Blair also said allies seriously underestimated the insurgency.

"It should have been very obvious to us" from the beginning, Blair said. [Emphasis added by me.]

Respectfully, Prime Minister, it was obvious from the beginning but the Administration chose to ignore the advice of its own experts in favor of wildly optimistic scenarios painted by Vice President Cheney and his merry band of neo-conservatives. Here is Vice President Cheney speaking 4 days before the Iraq invasion on March 16, 2003:

Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

From those carefree comments from Mr. Cheney to the confessions at today’s press conference, we have descended step by each humiliating step into defeat.

Today in Iraq sectarian violence claims the lives of about 30 innocent civilians every day. Bodies with drill holes in their heads are left on street corners like garbage to be picked up by the grim reaper. The islamist Dawa party slowly but steadily tightens its grip on the reigns of power in Iraq while their masters in Tehran rejoice in their good fortune. Ordinary Iraqis live in fear where the most mundane tasks of everyday life have become acts of fear and courage. Militias roam the streets and don the uniform of the Iraqi Police. Insurgents strike with impunity as their IEDs and suicide attacks continue to end lives and replenish the morgues. American soldiers retreat further into their barracks as it becomes increasingly more difficult to discern friend from foe.

There is nothing good in today’s news. The President of the most powerful nation in the world stood in front of the cameras today and looked for all the world to see to be a muddled schoolboy. Perhaps we have reached the bottom of the bucket of humiliation that is the American engagement in Iraq. Tomorrow promises to be the beginning of the American disengagement from Iraq. Tomorrow promises to also be the beginning of American abandonment of Iraq. American self-preservation will mean that Iraq will be left to suffer on its own for years to come.

Today is a milestone in an American and Global tragedy brought about by a President who fancied himself a cowboy. May the world see better days than this.

When President Bush nominated General Michael Hayden for the position of Director of Central Intelligence he threw down a gauntlet to the Democrats. He dared the Democrats to do battle on this nomination. He dared the Democrats to vote against Hayden and he dared the Democrats to hold up the nomination. He dared the Democrats to leave vacant the CIA Director’s position while the United States is engaged in wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Predictably, the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee saw the gauntlet, turned tail, and fled.

With the notable exception of Senators Feingold, Wyden and Bayh, the remaining Democrats on the Committee voted to send Hayden’s nomination to the floor. By voting for the nomination the 4 Democratic Senators have fallen into the political trap set for them by the Administration. The Administration has put the Democrats in a vise. If Democrats vote against the nomination, the Administration can claim that the Democrats are obstructionist and weak on national security. If the Democrats vote for the nomination, the Administration is inoculated against charges that it overstepped its authority by conducting warrant-less surveillance. A vote for Hayden is in effect an acceptance of the Administration’s position on the NSA spying. Either way the Democrats vote they will be beat upon relentlessly in the run up to the November elections.

Democrats have rightly decided that blocking Hayden’s nomination will damage them politically going into the November elections. However, voting for the architect of the NSA spying program is an even worse option. A vote for Hayden, in addition to giving the Administration a green light on the NSA spying, will also alienate the Democratic base - and the base is crucial in the November elections where turnout will likely determine the outcome of many races. A vote for Hayden will damage the Democrats just like John Kerry’s Iraq votes damaged him in the 2004 Presidential elections. Here the Administration has figured out that they can have their cake and eat it too - they get the nominee through and they damage the Democrats politically.

I propose a third option for the Democrats. When the nomination comes up for a vote on the Senate floor, the Democrats should neither try to block it nor vote against the nomination. Instead the Democrats should abstain. Abstaining on the nomination vote blunts the Administration’s logic and outflanks them politically. The Democrats cannot be seen as obstructionists when they do not hold up the nomination. The Democrats cannot be seen as weak on national security when they do not vote against the nominee. The Bush Administration will also fail in their gambit to inoculate themselves from charges that the NSA spying is illegal. The Democrats can say that they stood on principle and could not vote for a nominee who has a questionable record on protecting American civil liberties, and on the other hand, the Democrats can say that they could not vote against the President’s nominee for the crucial position of Director of Central Intelligence in a time of war. 

When the Bush Administration picked General Hayden, no doubt they believed they had a horse on which they could win multiple political points ahead of the elections. They counted on the Democrats to cower at the prospect of a nomination fight. They counted on the Democrats to lose the game. Instead of capitulating on the playing field laid out by Karl Rove and his friends the Democrats need instead to move the playing field. It’s a simple strategy yet it holds the promise of success. 

House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s newfound love of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers makes a little bit more sense today. Hastert was incensed yesterday when the FBI raided the offices of Representative William Jefferson. He appears to be even angrier today - he wants the FBI to give Jefferson’s marbles back. Hastert is understandably upset at the FBI - after all, the FBI is also busy investigating Hastert.

According to ABC News:

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government.

The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.

That pesky Jack Abramoff again! Apparently Hell hath no fury like a lobbyist scorned. It appears that Jack is just collecting on the $68,300 he gave Hastert:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is the  No.1 individual recipient of money from Abramoff and his clients, with a total of $68,300 contributed to his campaign committee and leadership PAC from 1998 to 2004.

Payback’s a bitch.