Democracy Is Not A Cure For Ignorance

Posted on March 21, 2006 by Mash

AMERICAblog has a post on the Afghan man facing death for converting to Christianity. The original story appears on the ABC News website here.

Apparently, the only hope the man has of escaping the death penalty is if he is found to be insane. Apparently in Afghanistan, it is better to be insane than to be a Christian. Chalk this up to another manifestation of our failed worldwide democracy drive. I think our money would be far better spent on eradicating illiteracy than on blowing up Iraqis. We have declared victory and walked away from Afghanistan. We have handed over the keys to NATO and turned a blind eye to the resurgence of the narcotics trade in Afghanistan. Bringing a war-torn, impoverished and illiterate society into the community of nations is not as simple as ordering up the next batch of smart bombs. Once the military finishes its job, the truly difficult job of reconstruction begins. This Administration is clearly not up to that task.

My message to the Administration today is a very simple one. If you want to defeat terrorism, you must fight ignorance as hard as you employ the military option. Without it, this war cannot be won.

Before the all too easy Islam bashing gets going in earnest once this story starts flashing over the airwaves, let me do my part to combat the ignorance about Islam by separating "Ignorance" from "Islam". Only an ignorant law would suggest that a man ought to be killed for being a Christian. Here are some interesting tid bits about Islam that might dispel some common misconceptions:

  • In Islam, it is fundamental that there is no compulsion in religion.
    • Verse 2.256 from the Koran: "There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. "
    • Verses 4.79 and 4.80: "Whatever benefit comes to you (O man!), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself, and We have sent you (O Prophet!), to mankind as an apostle; and Allah is sufficient as a witness. Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them."
    • Verses 17.54 and 17.55: And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe. Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith."
  • Christian, Jews and other monotheistic religions are referred to as the "People of the Book" in the Koran. They are not "infidels" as is commonly mentioned.
    • Verse 2.62 from the Koran: "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. "

If countries like Afghanistan truly intend to live within the modern world, they must acknowledge that this is the 21st century and not the 7th century. For that to happen, there has to be literacy and poverty alleviation (two sides of the same coin). Until they do that, no amount of democracy at the point of a gun will change a thing. And very soon, they will slide back into banning the flying of kites and resume beheading people in soccer stadiums.

Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, International, Islam | 2 Comments

His Vision For Iraq

Posted on March 20, 2006 by Mash

The latest series in the "stay the course" op-eds comes from Iraqi prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Jaafari, Tehran’s man in Baghdad, writes that his "first challenge will be to stifle terrorism". This is a very laudable goal. I have no doubt that Jaafari and the SCIRI want to stifle "terrorism". I do wonder whether their definition of "terrorism" might not be different than our definition of terrorism. I found the following from al-Jaafari’s op-ed quite revealing:

Sidelining Moqtada al-Sadr’s group from the Governing Council was a mistake. Had it been integrated into the political process back then, long before the formation of the Mahdi Army, events would have turned out differently in the south. I corrected this policy and brought Sadr’s group into the democratic process. This inclusive approach resulted in the huge nationwide turnout for the December elections and a parliament that truly reflects Iraq.

During my term as elected prime minister, Sadr’s group has not attacked any coalition troops. Furthermore, Sadr and several Sunni leaders are now catalysts for maintaining the peace in Iraq, calling on their followers not to retaliate against terrorist provocations, which aim to ignite civil war.

Unfortunately, we have suffered setbacks during the past year. The most troubling was the discovery of prisoner torture in an Interior Ministry jail in November. As soon as I learned of these despicable acts I formed an investigative committee made up solely of Sunni leaders, and I await its findings.

The long-term solution to this problem will be multifaceted. We must ensure that all security forces receive proper training and that there is a chain of command that holds commanders and officers responsible for such abuses. In addition, the various militias that fought Saddam Hussein’s regime honorably must be fully integrated into Iraq’s security forces without concentrating any particular group into any one division. Finally, we need to strengthen the country’s nascent judiciary, which suffered years of coercion and corruption under the former regime, to guarantee its independence and impartiality. [Emphasis added by me]

Sadr’s group, that is the Mahdi Army, along with the Badr Brigade of SCIRI have been systematically murdering their political rivals and Sunnis. They have certainly been "integrating" themselves into the Iraqi security forces. There will be no rule of law in Iraq as long as Islamist militias are allowed to set up shop under official sanction. The recent reports of death squads roaming the streets are not encouraging.

We have served up Iraq on a platter to the Iranians through their SCIRI proxies. We have turned what was the most secular Arab country, through our bumbling, into a de facto province of Iran. Don’t let the mild mannered front man fool you, I fear that al-Jaafari’s vision for Iraq is a rule of law based on an extreme interpretation of Islam. The Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade will insure that the men and women of Iraq get in line, with the women at the back of the line, of course.

Posted in Foreign Policy, International, Iraq | 3 Comments

Iraq War Timeline

Posted on March 19, 2006 by Mash

Here’s a timeline of the last 3 years from Think Progress.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iraq | 2 Comments

Losing The Military

Posted on March 19, 2006 by Mash

General Paul Eaton’s scathing op-ed in The New York Times takes aim squarely at Donald Rumsfeld. The first three paragraphs set the tone for a verbal assault on the Defense Secretary:

DURING World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote in it was this: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."

By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

In labeling Mr. Rumsfeld as "incompetent", General Eaton, in one stroke, dismisses Mr. Rumsfeld as unqualified to lead the armed forces. That is a very serious charge, and if in fact, our senior commanders share this view, Mr. Rumsfeld would best serve the country by stepping down.

General Eaton also makes very clear how ill prepared we were for the post-war (Phase IV) part of the invasion. This is a familiar charge, vehemently denied by the Administration, which is now adding to the growing chorus coming from our retired senior officers. The General also charges that the invasion and its aftermath were micro-managed from Washington by what he termed the "8,000-mile screwdriver". Apparently, the lessons of Vietnam have been overlooked.

The General further charges that the military was sent in under-manned and under-equipped. In other words, from the very beginning of the invasion, we have left our military in dire straits.

Apparently the message from the military senior staff wasn’t getting through to Washington then and is not getting through now. I suspect the message left the military fine but no one was listening at the other end. Not surprising, given Vice President Cheney’s remarkable defense of the patently false today:

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney did not express any regret for predicting in the days before the invasion that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators or his assessment 10 months ago that the insurgency was in its "last throes." On the contrary, he said the optimistic statements "were basically accurate, reflect reality."

There is a stunning disconnect here between those statements and what has actually transpired over the last three years. The President today kept up the positive spin without mentioning the difficulties:

President Bush marked the anniversary of the Iraq war Sunday by touting the efforts to build democracy there and avoiding any mention of the daily violence that rages three years after he ordered an invasion.

The president didn’t utter the word "war."

In their effort to convince us that all is well, the Administration is losing us, the military and the war in Iraq. It is time to stop spinning and start listening to the best advice of our generals, our experts on the region, and others to get us out of the morass we are sinking into.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iraq, Politics | 2 Comments

It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

Posted on March 19, 2006 by Mash

Is Iraq in the middle of a civil war? Former Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi thinks so. George Will thinks so. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney sees nothing of the sort. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agrees with the Vice President. President Bush is way ahead of both the Vice President and the Secretary and sees victory looming on the horizon.

In an earlier post I had discussed the opposing views of the crisis offered by Donald Rumsfeld and George Will. I had suggested that the Administration might take this opportunity to discuss with the American people more candidly what the situation in Iraq is like. However, it appears that the Administration has decided to give no quarter. Everyone has come out forcefully with the same talking points. It’s their story and they are sticking to it.

I am reminded of Fonzi from the sitcom "Happy Days". He just could not come out and say he was sorry. The word would stick in his throat and the most he could say was "I’m s-s-s-o-o-o..". The Administration and its allies cannot seem to utter the words "civil war". It would be comical if the situation were not so tragic. Allawi states that about 50 to 60 Iraqis are dying per day and he thinks this means "civil war". I’ll grant that Allawi benefits from screaming "fire" because he sorely needs to get back in the game. However, it seems to me 50 to 60 people being killed per day in sectarian violence smells like civil war. That is up to 420 people killed per week; 1800 people killed per month; 21,900 people killed per year. The United States military lost 58,226 men and women in action in Vietnam from 1964 to 1975. That is about 5293 KIA per year in what was a shooting war. If the current Iraqi conflict rages 11 years, the Iraqi death toll will be, at the current rate, a staggering 240,900. By any stretch of the imagination, there is a war raging in Iraq. We may choose to call it a "fashion show" for all that matters, but by any name, it is a war.

The verbal gymnastics required to dance around the "civil war" issue is illustrated in The Washington Post article by a quote from British Defense Secretary John Reid:

Every single politician I have met here from the prime minister to the president, the defense minister and indeed Ayad Allawi himself yesterday said to me there’s an increase in the sectarian killing, but there’s not a civil war and we will not allow a civil war to develop

When does the Minister think the line will be crossed? And how will he not allow it to happen? Is there some hard line between sectarian killing and civil war? If there is, we would like to know where it lies so that everyone is on the same page. He follows that quote up with an unfortunate Orwellian statement:

The essential thing is to show maximum unity in a government of national unity so that the terrorists that do want a civil war do not get their wish.

Naturally, the government of national unity should maximize its "unityness".

The Vice President is also very confident that we are headed in the right direction:

I think we are going to succeed in Iraq, I think the evidence is overwhelming.

I am still hoping that the Administration will change course, not as a sign of weakness, but as a sign of wisdom. Here’s Senator Hagel with some advice:

"It’s important that we stop this talk about we’re not going to leave until we achieve victory," said Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

"We need some new thinking here," Hagel told ABC television.

We need to move beyond semantics and toward reasonable discourse and action.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iraq, Politics | 2 Comments