Charles Krauthammer Chokes On A Chicken Hawk

Posted on March 28, 2006 by Mash

Fresh from his "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Civil War" column, Charles Krauthammer points his wrath at Francis Fukuyama in his latest column. Krauthammer is mad as hell and he isn’t going to take it anymore. Apparently, Fukuyama used an anecdote that prominently featured Mr. Krauthammer, but he changed the actual events to protect the guilty. Or something along those lines. It is all very confusing, you see, and I really don’t feel comfortable commenting on the he said-he said. Seems like a private matter between two adults to me.

I am sure Krauthammer, when he calms down, will rethink this column and rewrite it about something entirely different. Until then, I will amuse myself by rereading this very mean-spirited column. I’m guessing that the news from Iraq has got Krauthammer seeing red. He is fighting the enemy (Fukuyama) here so that he doesn’t have to fight the enemy there.

There is one interesting nugget in an otherwise personal letter from Krauthammer to Fukuyama. Defending himself, Krauthammer points out that he believed the Iraq war was necessary but perhaps not winnable. Lest I get accused of misrepresenting him, here are his exact words from the column:

My argument then, as now, was the necessity of this undertaking, never its ensured success. And it was necessary because, as I said, there is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the root causes of Sept. 11: "The cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world — oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism."

Krauthammer takes a leap of faith even Kierkegaard would be proud of here. I am not sure attacking the most secular country in the Arab world was the best way to fight the root causes of the Islamic radicalism that led to the attacks of September 11. In fact, to borrow his phrase, I don’t think that even a remotely plausible argument can be made for the attack on Iraq and its connection to September 11. That is why, the WMD argument was trotted out, and that is why the much-touted phantom link between Saddam Hussein and September 11 was dangled in front of us.

This column from Charles Krauthammer, if it has any larger meaning, may be a shot across the bow of all wavering neo-cons and chicken hawks. Abandon ship at your own peril. Your former shipmates will be pointing the ship’s cannons at you before your feet even hit the water below.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Humor, Iraq, Politics | 4 Comments

11 Million Felons

Posted on March 27, 2006 by Mash

Liberty Enlightening the World"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

– The New Collosus by Emma Lazarus

  

 The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved bipartisan legislation that would create a guest worker program and allow the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States to legalize their status and ultimately apply for naturalization. At its core, this legislation recognizes the obvious – that undocumented immigrants, primarily from Latin America, have become a part of the social and economic fabric of this country. The bill also includes provisions for strengthening Border Patrol and increasing the number of green cards available for skilled workers.

The bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee is vastly different from the draconian bill passed by the House in December. Most notably, the House bill does not contain a guest worker program and is wholly focused on tougher enforcement. The House bill proposes to make undocumented aliens felons and to make aiding an undocumented alien a felony.  Sec. 274(a)(1) of the bill criminalizes actions of those who:

(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;

(D) transports or moves a person in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the United States, where the transportation or movement will aid or further in any manner the person’s illegal entry into or illegal presence in the United States;

The two bills reveal the split within the Republican Party between the pro-business wing and the anti-immigration wing. What initially looked like a political winner for the Republicans in the 2006 elections now appears to be far murkier. The Sensenbrenner/Frist wing had hoped to appeal to the baser instincts of the voters by connecting the dots (not too subtly) from undocumented immigrants, to criminals, to terrorists. Although it plays well on right wing radio it is not clear whether the public’s fear of another terrorist attack can be manipulated into an anti-immigration platform and finally into votes in November. The Republican hope is that this will be the same kind of wedge issue in 2006 that gay marriage was for the Republicans in 2004.

I think it is highly unlikely that the House version of the bill would ever pass both chambers (and vice versa). The pro-business Republicans in the Senate would not allow it. However, the controversy generated by this issue and the stark choices will make for good election year politicking. Expect to see Republicans beat the drum pretty hard on this issue if they start getting traction with the voters, but also expect to see no legislative action. Either the bill stalls in the Senate or the two bills become comatose in conference. When you cannot run on your record and have to run away from the President, appealing to the baser instincts of the electorate always seems like a good idea.

So, where does that leave the very real issue of immigration reform? Nowhere, I’m afraid. The urgent need to balance the right of a nation to secure its borders and the great tradition of this country to welcome people seeking a better life will not be addressed this election year. The 11 million undocumented immigrants and the American public will spend another year out in the cold.

Posted in Immigration, Politics | 3 Comments

Civil War In Iraq

Posted on March 27, 2006 by Mash

Civil War in IraqThis week marks the beginning of the Iraqi Civil War. The American mission in Iraq is over. We can either stay and fight everyone, pick sides, or leave. No choice open to America now will improve the situation on the ground.

The events kicked off by the Samarra bombing have now been book-ended by the attack on the mosque in Baghdad. We have entered the fray in a big way with the attack on the mosque. Images of the dead lying in a prayer room in the mosque and reports that the 80-year-old imam of the mosque has also been killed are being beamed continuously to everyone with a TV and electricity in Iraq. The American military’s protestations that the mosque was not entered will fall on deaf ears. We have no credibility there – not only because we are not trusted, but also because we have been unable or unwilling to stop the bloodletting there.

The ingredient missing from Iraq’s slide into civil war was mainstream outrage and anger and an embracing of the sectarian militias as the only guarantors of security. We have, perhaps unwittingly, provided the last piece of the puzzle and now the civil war picture is complete.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iraq, Politics | 2 Comments

Duck And Cover

Posted on March 26, 2006 by Mash

What happens if Abdul Rahman is set free in Afghanistan and is then killed by a fanatical lynch mob? After all, clerics in Afghanistan have threatened to tear him to pieces. It is an entirely convenient outcome for all concerned. The West can say that they pressured the Karzai government to release him; and they would be right. The Karzai government can claim that they reconciled Western values with Afghan tradition and released the man (albeit on a technicality); and they would be right. The Afghan judiciary can say that they wanted to prosecute him but he was found insane; and they would be right. The Afghan clerics would say that justice must be served, and so a mob killing would be justified; and, by their logic, they would be right.

Everyone wins under this scenario except:

  • Abdul Rahman (obviously, I don’t need to explain why he loses here)
  • Afghanistan because it does not face the kind of hard choice that societies must confront in order to develop socially and politically
  • Islam because it does not get to settle once and for all that the date on the calendar is 2006 and not 622
  • The rest of us because we all have a stake in protecting basic human rights (codified internationally in the UDHR).

So, we should not embrace this ducking of the issue by Afghanistan or by our leaders. We should resist it. We should demand that the Afghan constitution resolve the conflict in its language between its acceptance of the UDHR and Islamic Sharia law. We wanted a revolution in that part of the world, well, now we’ve got it. This is the moment of Afghanistan’s liberation, not Tora Bora. We have considerable clout with the Karzai government (we pay his bills and provide for his security). It is time for us to demand a return on our investment. It is time for the Karzai government to move the Taliban out of the Afghan judiciary and offer some real protections. If his government falls, so be it. It was and is an impotent government anyway.

The real war against terror was in Afghanistan until we exported it to Iraq. That war still rages for all Afghanis – in the degradation of women, in medieval justice, in the illiteracy, in the ignorance, in the poverty. We must fight this war, now that we are called to wage it. This war is the "long war", to borrow a phrase. It requires bombs and teachers. It requires guns and books. It requires the exposition of one simple idea: that the basic right of human beings is the right to exist. And to exist means to think (tip to Descartes), and to think freely. All else follows: votes, democracy, wealth, pursuit of happiness, etc.

Whether this President and this Government has the political capital (after the humiliation in Iraq), the political will, and the requisite foresight and competence to carry out this long war remains in great doubt. Past experience suggests that the Administration is not capable of confronting this complex challenge. It pays lip service to words like "freedom" and "liberty" without understanding what lies behind these ideals. This Administration started the process in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from official power. Now it must follow through by giving the Afghan people the tools needed to remove the Taliban from their lives. Anything less will be another defeat for the United States in this war.

What can we do as citizens? The easy answer is that we should make our leaders accountable to us. We should remind our leaders who the enemy is and who attacked us. We should remind them that those who attacked us are still out there and their mystique grows with the passing of each humiliating day in Iraq for the United States. Our leaders must find a way to contain the damage we have done to Iraq, to ourselves and to our ability to project moral and military power. They must find a way to restore the image of the United States in the world – with each passing day and each defiant swagger of the likes of John Bolton this task is that much harder. Our leaders must restore the international alliances and organizations that we have left in tatters. Our leaders must commit to doing all of these things, or we must send them off to early retirement.

Make no mistake, there is a battle going on not only for the soul of Islam but also for the soul of the United States. Where we stand in this fight will determine what kind of planet we leave our children. We must decide whether we choose a clash of civilizations or a historic leap forward in our understanding of one another. The stakes are nothing less than that.

Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Islam, Politics | Comments Off on Duck And Cover

Hate Has A Name

Posted on March 26, 2006 by Mash

As sectarian violence spins out of control in Iraq, today The Washington Post reports that Moqtada al-Sadr’s compound was struck with two mortars. He was inside and survived injury.

 After the attack, al-Sadr released a statement with the obligatory call for calm. As translated by The Associated Press:

 "I call upon all brothers to stay calm and I call upon the Iraqi army to protect the pilgrims as the Nawasib (militants) are aiming to attack Shiites everyday," the statement said, according to the Associated Press. 

Or did he? The Post article points out:

 In the past two months, attacks on two Shiite targets — a Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra, and Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood, a stronghold of Sadr support — have unleashed the greatest sectarian bloodletting since U.S. forces overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sadr issued similar appeals for calm after both attacks.

 However, Sadr’s thousands-strong Mahdi Army militia is accused by many U.S. officials and others in the violent retaliation to the mosque bombing and Sadr City attack.

 Al-Sadr uses the word "Nawasib" in his statement. It is a very loaded word and is code for inciting violence in otherwise benign statements. "Nawasib" is understood by the Shiite to mean "those who declared hostility against the household of the Prophet". It is an insult used to refer to Sunnis. It is not a word you would use when you are interested in reconciliation. It is a word you would use to incite hate and violence. To make the comparison more immediate, consider that there are similar words that racists use in the United States (and I will not repeat them here) when they are interested in hatemongering.

 The radicals use our ignorance of their culture against us. They are very adept at playing the Bush Administration for full advantage, on the one hand, getting material support as the "good" guys in the Green Zone, and on the other hand, using that "material support" to kill innocents while we are patting ourselves on the back for teaching these people about democracy.

 Hate always has many names. In Iraq, Hate sometimes likes to call itself "Nawasib".

 

 

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iraq, Islam, Politics | 16 Comments