Mideast Oasis or Mirage? - Thomas Friedman, New York Times
Iraq Must Seize Opportunity - Anthony Cordesman, Financial Times
Al-Qaida's Emerging Defeat - Austin Bay, RealClearPolitics
Full Version: Foreign Policy Commentary
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media
An Opening in Annapolis - Washington Post
Bush on the Battlefield - New York Sun
Venezuela Veers Toward Dictatorship - Los Angeles Times
France's Troubled Banlieues - Times of London
Bush on the Battlefield - New York Sun
Venezuela Veers Toward Dictatorship - Los Angeles Times
France's Troubled Banlieues - Times of London
White House squabble on releasing Iranians
A behind-the-scenes row in the George W Bush administration played a part in the decision to release nine Iranian prisoners. Vice President Dick Cheney and General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, took a hit, but administration hardliners continue to oppose any further move to reduce tensions with Iran. - Gareth Porter (Nov 28, '07)
A behind-the-scenes row in the George W Bush administration played a part in the decision to release nine Iranian prisoners. Vice President Dick Cheney and General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, took a hit, but administration hardliners continue to oppose any further move to reduce tensions with Iran. - Gareth Porter (Nov 28, '07)
THE ROVING EYE
'Our' dictator gets away with it
The embrace of President George W Bush and President General Pervez Musharraf endures. Pakistan and its people caught in the middle are left to watch their country burn, and contemplate the worst-case scenario of partition. - Pepe Escobar (Nov 27, '07)
'Our' dictator gets away with it
The embrace of President George W Bush and President General Pervez Musharraf endures. Pakistan and its people caught in the middle are left to watch their country burn, and contemplate the worst-case scenario of partition. - Pepe Escobar (Nov 27, '07)
“A” is for Apartheid or Annapolis
by Susan Abulhawa / November 28th, 2007
In the 80s, we gave up 78% of our homeland to try to pick up the pieces of our lives on the remaining 22% of Palestine. This was, and remains, the only true (brave or otherwise) concession ever made in the so-called ‘Middle East Conflict.” Next came Camp David, then Madrid, then Oslo, then another Camp David, Taba, Wye, (deep breath) Sharm el Sheikh, the Disengagement, the Road Map. Through it all, Israel continued to divide, carve out, confiscate and settle that 22%. They scattered us into a diaspora, shut down our schools, bombed damn near every inch of the West Bank and Gaza, herded us into ghettos, set up checkpoints all around us and employed every tool of imperialism, times ten, to get rid of or subjugate us as a cheap labor force. (Full article …)
U.S. and Iraq Agree on Long-Term Relations
The White House reached a formal agreement Monday with the Iraqi government on long-term relations between the two nations. The pact does not specify, however, the eventual number of American troops nor the length of their deployment. Cato scholar Ted Galen Carpenter has argued "The notion that Iraq would become a stable, united, secular democracy and be the model for a new Middle East was always an illusion. We should not ask more Americans to die for that illusion."
The White House reached a formal agreement Monday with the Iraqi government on long-term relations between the two nations. The pact does not specify, however, the eventual number of American troops nor the length of their deployment. Cato scholar Ted Galen Carpenter has argued "The notion that Iraq would become a stable, united, secular democracy and be the model for a new Middle East was always an illusion. We should not ask more Americans to die for that illusion."
WHAT'S LATIN AMERICA WORTH? (The Miami Herald) By Carlos Alberto Montaner
13 November 2007
There's an old saying that children come to the world with a loaf of bread under an arm. It's the other way around. Every creature who opens his eyes, in any society in the world, immediately receives a virtual gift. Potentially, a certain amount of accumulated capital awaits him. What does that capital amount to? Naturally, it depends on the country.
The World Bank has dared to quantify it, utilizing a team of fine economists who researched 120 countries. They called their report ''Where Is the Wealth of Nations?'' It is worth reading.
According to the study -- and the premise is persuasive -- wealth comprises three key elements: the natural capital (forests, minerals, aquifers, fertile land, etc.), the produced capital (factories, industrial and urban infrastructure, services, machines, etc.) and the intangible capital (education, quality of the institutions, the rule of law, transparency, stability, beliefs and attitudes, etc.)
Of those three factors, the decisive one is the intangible capital, the equivalent of four-fifths of the total capital. Why? Because it allows the conversion of natural wealth into created wealth. An oil well is worthless if managed by a group of incompetent people in a chaotic society.
A potentially wealthy country with a huge natural capital, such as Venezuela, nevertheless is home to a poor society, because its intangible capital is minimal and is gradually reduced by every stupidity committed by its rulers.
The nation that has accumulated the most capital per capita in the world is Switzerland with $648,241. The poorest is Ethiopia, with only $1,965.
Switzerland is followed by Denmark ($575,138), Sweden ($513,424), the United States ($512,612) and Germany ($496,447).
Nine of the world's 10 most miserable nations are African.
Accumulated percapita wealth in Latin America is most notable in the southern cone: Argentina ($139,932), Uruguay ($118,463), Brazil ($86,922) and Chile ($77,726). (In Paraguay, however, it drops to $35,600). But although these countries -- with the exception of Paraguay -- are the wealthiest in Latin America, they're barely one half of what Spain is worth per capita: $261,205.
The Andean strip is even poorer: Venezuela, $45,196 (three times less than Argentina, a fact that fails to explain why President Hugo Chávez bought $5 billion worth of Argentine debt bonds to help its mismanaged neighbor); Colombia, $44,660; Peru, $39,046; Ecuador, $33,745, and Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, barely $18,141. That figure casts doubt on Evo Morales' assertion that in a decade (or did he say two?) his country would be at the level of Switzerland.
Three Mesoamerican countries have a level of wealth that's higher than the Andean region but lower than the southern cone: Mexico ($61,872), Costa Rica ($61,611) and Panama ($57,663). But the other Central American countries are remarkably poor: Guatemala ($30,480), Nicaragua ($13,214) and Honduras ($11,567).
In the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic ($33,410), although a nation with little accumulated per-capita capital, holds four times the wealth of Haiti ($8,235), the Western Hemisphere's failed country. That relationship guarantees a constant illegal migratory flow from the most wretched corner of the island to the most buoyant.
In general, when comparing the economic fate of the territories colonized by Britain -- other than the United States and Canada -- with the situation in countries with a Spanish tradition, we find that the economic results are somewhat better on the British side. Barbados, with $146,737 of accumulated capital per capita, surpasses Argentina, the most developed country in Spanish America, while almost all the British-background islands are wealthier than the independent, Spanish-speaking Antilles (Cuba and the Dominican Republic, inasmuch as Puerto Rico is a U.S. commonwealth.)
Although Cuba does not appear on the study, because of the scant reliability of its statistical data and the paranoid secrecy of its government, it is believed that its accumulated capital today is smaller than its counterparts in the Dominican Republic and Jamaica ($47,796).
From the World Bank study we also derive some valuable lessons: the value of savings, the role of investment in education, the importance of plugging into the great commercial and financial circuits and the imperative need to strengthen institutions and property rights if we want to advance in the direction of progress.
Nothing this study says can surprise us, other than the elegant and well-reasoned manner in which it documents its arguments and confirms the intuition of giants like Adam Smith. In 1776, this brilliant Scot, an observer and moralist, wrote his memorable An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The World Bank has finally attached numbers to it.
13 November 2007
There's an old saying that children come to the world with a loaf of bread under an arm. It's the other way around. Every creature who opens his eyes, in any society in the world, immediately receives a virtual gift. Potentially, a certain amount of accumulated capital awaits him. What does that capital amount to? Naturally, it depends on the country.
The World Bank has dared to quantify it, utilizing a team of fine economists who researched 120 countries. They called their report ''Where Is the Wealth of Nations?'' It is worth reading.
According to the study -- and the premise is persuasive -- wealth comprises three key elements: the natural capital (forests, minerals, aquifers, fertile land, etc.), the produced capital (factories, industrial and urban infrastructure, services, machines, etc.) and the intangible capital (education, quality of the institutions, the rule of law, transparency, stability, beliefs and attitudes, etc.)
Of those three factors, the decisive one is the intangible capital, the equivalent of four-fifths of the total capital. Why? Because it allows the conversion of natural wealth into created wealth. An oil well is worthless if managed by a group of incompetent people in a chaotic society.
A potentially wealthy country with a huge natural capital, such as Venezuela, nevertheless is home to a poor society, because its intangible capital is minimal and is gradually reduced by every stupidity committed by its rulers.
The nation that has accumulated the most capital per capita in the world is Switzerland with $648,241. The poorest is Ethiopia, with only $1,965.
Switzerland is followed by Denmark ($575,138), Sweden ($513,424), the United States ($512,612) and Germany ($496,447).
Nine of the world's 10 most miserable nations are African.
Accumulated percapita wealth in Latin America is most notable in the southern cone: Argentina ($139,932), Uruguay ($118,463), Brazil ($86,922) and Chile ($77,726). (In Paraguay, however, it drops to $35,600). But although these countries -- with the exception of Paraguay -- are the wealthiest in Latin America, they're barely one half of what Spain is worth per capita: $261,205.
The Andean strip is even poorer: Venezuela, $45,196 (three times less than Argentina, a fact that fails to explain why President Hugo Chávez bought $5 billion worth of Argentine debt bonds to help its mismanaged neighbor); Colombia, $44,660; Peru, $39,046; Ecuador, $33,745, and Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, barely $18,141. That figure casts doubt on Evo Morales' assertion that in a decade (or did he say two?) his country would be at the level of Switzerland.
Three Mesoamerican countries have a level of wealth that's higher than the Andean region but lower than the southern cone: Mexico ($61,872), Costa Rica ($61,611) and Panama ($57,663). But the other Central American countries are remarkably poor: Guatemala ($30,480), Nicaragua ($13,214) and Honduras ($11,567).
In the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic ($33,410), although a nation with little accumulated per-capita capital, holds four times the wealth of Haiti ($8,235), the Western Hemisphere's failed country. That relationship guarantees a constant illegal migratory flow from the most wretched corner of the island to the most buoyant.
In general, when comparing the economic fate of the territories colonized by Britain -- other than the United States and Canada -- with the situation in countries with a Spanish tradition, we find that the economic results are somewhat better on the British side. Barbados, with $146,737 of accumulated capital per capita, surpasses Argentina, the most developed country in Spanish America, while almost all the British-background islands are wealthier than the independent, Spanish-speaking Antilles (Cuba and the Dominican Republic, inasmuch as Puerto Rico is a U.S. commonwealth.)
Although Cuba does not appear on the study, because of the scant reliability of its statistical data and the paranoid secrecy of its government, it is believed that its accumulated capital today is smaller than its counterparts in the Dominican Republic and Jamaica ($47,796).
From the World Bank study we also derive some valuable lessons: the value of savings, the role of investment in education, the importance of plugging into the great commercial and financial circuits and the imperative need to strengthen institutions and property rights if we want to advance in the direction of progress.
Nothing this study says can surprise us, other than the elegant and well-reasoned manner in which it documents its arguments and confirms the intuition of giants like Adam Smith. In 1776, this brilliant Scot, an observer and moralist, wrote his memorable An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The World Bank has finally attached numbers to it.
The Gates Critique – Boston Globe editorial
Iraq Must Seize Precious Opportunity – Anthony Cordesman, Financial Times
Bush Isn’t the Only Decider on Iraq – Bruce Ackerman, Los Angeles Times
Iraq Accountability Due – David Limbaugh, Washington Times
Public Sees Progress in War – Pew Research Center
Good News on Bush’s Watch? – Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times
Al Qaeda’s Emerging Defeat – Austin Bay, Real Clear Politics
Rewarding One's Friends - Robert Scheer, San Francisco Chronicle
Military Readiness and Waging War – John Brinkerhoff, Washington Times
A Few Good People – Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics
A Tribute to Howard – Greg Sheridan, The Australian
Annapolis: The Long Haul - Baltimore Sun editorial
Annapolis: It's a Start - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
Palestine: Land of Prophets at a Loss – Alan Gold, The Australian
Annapolis Animosity - Meyrav Wurmser, National Review
Saudis Played Key Role - Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star
Annapolis Talks Likely to Fail – Rami Khouri, Daily Star
Pakistan: The General Retires – Washington Post editorial
Sharif, Bhutto and the (Ex-) General? – New York Times editorial
Ominous Future for Pakistan - Kamal Siddiqi, Boston Globe
Citizen Musharraf – Amir Taheri, New York Post
Destroying Lebanon for a Great Sinecure – Michael Young, Daily Star
Battle of the Youth Bulge - Gunnar Heinsohn, Weekly Standard
On the Archbishop of Canterbury – Giles Fraser, Sydney Morning Herald
‘Tolerance’ in Khartoum – New York Post editorial
British Muslims Should Protest Teddy Lunacy – Boris Johnson, London Daily Telegraph
Lesson in Russian Voter Fraud – Mark Almond, Canberra Times
Shutting Up Venezuela’s Chávez? – Roger Cohen, New York Times
Hugo Chávez's Vision in the Hills – Charles Lane, Washington Post
Iraq Must Seize Precious Opportunity – Anthony Cordesman, Financial Times
Bush Isn’t the Only Decider on Iraq – Bruce Ackerman, Los Angeles Times
Iraq Accountability Due – David Limbaugh, Washington Times
Public Sees Progress in War – Pew Research Center
Good News on Bush’s Watch? – Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times
Al Qaeda’s Emerging Defeat – Austin Bay, Real Clear Politics
Rewarding One's Friends - Robert Scheer, San Francisco Chronicle
Military Readiness and Waging War – John Brinkerhoff, Washington Times
A Few Good People – Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics
A Tribute to Howard – Greg Sheridan, The Australian
Annapolis: The Long Haul - Baltimore Sun editorial
Annapolis: It's a Start - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
Palestine: Land of Prophets at a Loss – Alan Gold, The Australian
Annapolis Animosity - Meyrav Wurmser, National Review
Saudis Played Key Role - Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star
Annapolis Talks Likely to Fail – Rami Khouri, Daily Star
Pakistan: The General Retires – Washington Post editorial
Sharif, Bhutto and the (Ex-) General? – New York Times editorial
Ominous Future for Pakistan - Kamal Siddiqi, Boston Globe
Citizen Musharraf – Amir Taheri, New York Post
Destroying Lebanon for a Great Sinecure – Michael Young, Daily Star
Battle of the Youth Bulge - Gunnar Heinsohn, Weekly Standard
On the Archbishop of Canterbury – Giles Fraser, Sydney Morning Herald
‘Tolerance’ in Khartoum – New York Post editorial
British Muslims Should Protest Teddy Lunacy – Boris Johnson, London Daily Telegraph
Lesson in Russian Voter Fraud – Mark Almond, Canberra Times
Shutting Up Venezuela’s Chávez? – Roger Cohen, New York Times
Hugo Chávez's Vision in the Hills – Charles Lane, Washington Post
A 'Surge' for Afghanistan
by SWJ Editors
Gordon Lubold in today's Christian Science Monitor - A 'Surge' for Afghanistan.
Continue reading "A 'Surge' for Afghanistan" »
by SWJ Editors
Gordon Lubold in today's Christian Science Monitor - A 'Surge' for Afghanistan.
The top general of the Marine Corps is pushing hard to deploy marines to Afghanistan as he looks to draw down his forces in Iraq, but his proposal, which is under discussion at the Pentagon this week, faces deep resistance from other military leaders.
Commandant Gen. James Conway's plan, if approved, would deploy a large contingent of Marines to Afghanistan, perhaps as early as next year. The reinforcements would be used to fight the Taliban, which US officials concede is now defending its territory more effectively against allied and Afghan forces.
Within the Pentagon, General Conway's proposal has led to speculation about which, if any, American forces would be best suited to provide reinforcements for a mission that, most agree, has far more political appeal than the one in Iraq. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has already recommended against the proposal, at least for now, a military official said Tuesday…
Conway says that Marines, who have been largely responsible for calming Anbar Province in Iraq, can either return home or "stay plugged into the fight" by essentially redeploying to Afghanistan...Rick Rogers, San Diego Union-Tribune, on USMC current operations in Anbar, Iraq and implications for the Afghanistan mission - Marines' Duties go Well Beyond Combat.
... some Marine commanders and defense specialists question whether the Corps' expeditionary combat strengths are being wasted in Anbar.
The Marines are revered for their offensive capabilities, said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer at the Lexington Institute think tank in Arlington, Va.
"At some point, we are going to have to ask why are we sending a quick-strike force to do nation building. It really would make more sense to send them to Afghanistan to chase insurgents than to have them helping locals in Anbar province build schools," Thompson said.
"If the mission becomes more reconstruction, then it is more of an Army job," he added.
The proposal for handing Marines the lead combat role in Afghanistan has been espoused by senior commanders such as Lt. Gen. [General] James Mattis, Helland's immediate predecessor at Camp Pendleton...Nothing follows.
Continue reading "A 'Surge' for Afghanistan" »
Editorials
The General Retires - Washington Post
Abu Dhabi Takes Manhattan--and Washington, Too? - Wall Street Journal
Annapolis Summit: It's a Start - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
On the Streets, Again in Paris - The Economist
Annapolis Conference: Joint Understanding Read by President Bush
The NewsHour: An Interview With PM Ehud Olmert
The NewsHour: An Interview With PM Ehud Olmert
Arabs at AnnapolisAfter Annapolis, the burden will be on the U.S. to press Israel to deliver meaningful concessions.
Are you with us or against us?What failed in Pakistan, as in Iraq, isn't just a regional U.S. policy, but the pillars of the Bush doctrine.
Will Syria’s presence at Annapolis stabilize Lebanon? "There's been a very clear link in the past two weeks between the Lebanon crisis and Annapolis,"
How Islam influenced the European RenaissanceAll the Islamic discoveries were used by the Europeans as the raw material for the Scientific Revolution.
"Why hold a peace conference now?!"
The Annapolis conference will never work, because Hamas, who were DEMORATICALLY-ELECTED are not invited.
'The Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein!'
Western states are responsible for Iraqi deaths, either by years of sanctions, bombings or killings by foreign troops.
"The ME doesn't need a U.S.-imposed democracy"
The Middle East being democratic is not in the interest of the U.S., which wants the region to remain in chaos.
"Islam teaches us to live in a simple way"
It's not a surprise that more and more people worldwide are now converting to Islam.
The Annapolis conference will never work, because Hamas, who were DEMORATICALLY-ELECTED are not invited.
'The Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein!'
Western states are responsible for Iraqi deaths, either by years of sanctions, bombings or killings by foreign troops.
"The ME doesn't need a U.S.-imposed democracy"
The Middle East being democratic is not in the interest of the U.S., which wants the region to remain in chaos.
"Islam teaches us to live in a simple way"
It's not a surprise that more and more people worldwide are now converting to Islam.
China's and the World's Olympic Losers by Peter Kwong
Chinese rural migrants who move to the cities are like illegal immigrants entering another country. Without legal standing to live and work there, they exist in a legal void and are easy targets for exploitation. Yet they are the backbone of China's boom -- the exploited workers of "the world's factory."
more...
Like Madrid on Tranquilizers by Rami G. Khouri
For months there have been no indicators as to why any of the participants are showing up at Annapolis this week. A success -- lowball as it is -- would be the revival of some credibility for the Bush administration. But there are not even encouraging signs of that.
more...
Chinese rural migrants who move to the cities are like illegal immigrants entering another country. Without legal standing to live and work there, they exist in a legal void and are easy targets for exploitation. Yet they are the backbone of China's boom -- the exploited workers of "the world's factory."
more...
Like Madrid on Tranquilizers by Rami G. Khouri
For months there have been no indicators as to why any of the participants are showing up at Annapolis this week. A success -- lowball as it is -- would be the revival of some credibility for the Bush administration. But there are not even encouraging signs of that.
more...
No Facebook friendships
November 28, 2007
In the hot air peace conference that George Bush and Condoleezza Rice are currently hosting, the Saudi Arabian delegates refused to shake hands with the Israelis More
Guantanamo no longer a Democratic party talking point
November 28, 2007
In a sentence: Guantanamo has a big vacancy sign out front since so many suspects have been released to their respective nations More
November 28, 2007
In the hot air peace conference that George Bush and Condoleezza Rice are currently hosting, the Saudi Arabian delegates refused to shake hands with the Israelis More
Guantanamo no longer a Democratic party talking point
November 28, 2007
In a sentence: Guantanamo has a big vacancy sign out front since so many suspects have been released to their respective nations More
Playing Roulette in Pakistan
by Robert Scheer
Distorting Fascism to Demonize Iran by Ismael Hossein-zadeh
The Myths of Military Progress
by Ron Jacobs
by Robert Scheer
Distorting Fascism to Demonize Iran by Ismael Hossein-zadeh
The Myths of Military Progress
by Ron Jacobs
Annapolis Afterthought by Patrick Foy
In the Fox's Lair by William S. Lind
Iraq 3.0 by Sheldon Richman
In the Fox's Lair by William S. Lind
Iraq 3.0 by Sheldon Richman
Report: 'Islamofascism' blinds U.S.
Published: Nov. 28, 2007 at 4:52 PM
WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- The term "Islamofascism" dangerously obscures important distinctions and differences between groups of Islamic extremists, says a counter-terror think tank.
"Since Sept. 11 conservatives have continually lumped various groups and countries together … into one threat that they term 'Islamofascism,'" according to the National Security Network, a group of left-leaning former U.S. officials and experts in counter-terrorism and national security.
"The reality is much complicated," reads their report issued Wednesday. The groups and nations that make up the "Islamofascist" threat include al-Qaida, al-Qaida in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian government institutions that they control, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In reality, the report says, "These various groups and countries have different intentions and capabilities, often work at cross purposes and are in some cases ideologically opposed to each other."
Escalating tensions across the region between Shiites and Sunnis only emphasize their divergent interests and intentions.
"By confusing these various threats, conservatives make it impossible to pursue effective policies," the report concludes, adding that the approach "has caused the United States to miss numerous opportunities, where it could have played these groups off of each other to America's benefit."
The term also "creates the perception that the United States is fighting a religious war against Islam, thus alienating moderate voices in the region who would be willing to work with America towards common goals."
"Dividing these groups and dealing with them separately is a far better policy than lumping them together," the report concludes.
© 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.
Published: Nov. 28, 2007 at 4:52 PM
WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- The term "Islamofascism" dangerously obscures important distinctions and differences between groups of Islamic extremists, says a counter-terror think tank.
"Since Sept. 11 conservatives have continually lumped various groups and countries together … into one threat that they term 'Islamofascism,'" according to the National Security Network, a group of left-leaning former U.S. officials and experts in counter-terrorism and national security.
"The reality is much complicated," reads their report issued Wednesday. The groups and nations that make up the "Islamofascist" threat include al-Qaida, al-Qaida in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian government institutions that they control, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In reality, the report says, "These various groups and countries have different intentions and capabilities, often work at cross purposes and are in some cases ideologically opposed to each other."
Escalating tensions across the region between Shiites and Sunnis only emphasize their divergent interests and intentions.
"By confusing these various threats, conservatives make it impossible to pursue effective policies," the report concludes, adding that the approach "has caused the United States to miss numerous opportunities, where it could have played these groups off of each other to America's benefit."
The term also "creates the perception that the United States is fighting a religious war against Islam, thus alienating moderate voices in the region who would be willing to work with America towards common goals."
"Dividing these groups and dealing with them separately is a far better policy than lumping them together," the report concludes.
© 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.
Dahr Jamail: Military Slaughters Iraqi Civilians Name them. Maim them. Kill them. From the beginning of the American occupation in Iraq, air strikes and attacks by the U.S. military have only killed "militants," "criminals," "suspected insurgents," "IED [Improvised Explosive Device] emplacers," "anti-American fighters," "terrorists," "military age males," "armed men," "extremists," or "al-Qaeda."
What happened to the benchmarks?
Talking Points Memo, citing a New York Times article, says that while the surge in Iraq is drawing great praise, the Bush administration has given up on the benchmarks that were supposed to determine its success.
(Talking Points Memo)
More Spotlights >>
Talking Points Memo, citing a New York Times article, says that while the surge in Iraq is drawing great praise, the Bush administration has given up on the benchmarks that were supposed to determine its success.
(Talking Points Memo)
More Spotlights >>
If Iran's Guards strike back ...
In the event of a US attack on Iran, it's a cinch that the "terrorist" Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps will fiercely retaliate with a volatile mix of sophisticated conventional forces and unconventional means. One thing is certain, however: US thinking has ignored the highly complex relationship between post-Ba'athist Shi'ite militias in Iraq and the Guards. (Nov 29, '07)
In the event of a US attack on Iran, it's a cinch that the "terrorist" Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps will fiercely retaliate with a volatile mix of sophisticated conventional forces and unconventional means. One thing is certain, however: US thinking has ignored the highly complex relationship between post-Ba'athist Shi'ite militias in Iraq and the Guards. (Nov 29, '07)
Baptism of fire for Pakistan's army head
General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, Pakistan's new head of the army, had barely stepped into the shoes of Pervez Musharraf, now a civilian president, than he was given a decision to make that could change the fate of the country. Militants fighting the Pakistani army in the Swat Valley have called for a ceasefire. If Kiani accepts, he will appease large sections of the country. If he refuses, he has Washington to deal with. - Syed Saleem Shahzad (Nov 29, '07)
General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, Pakistan's new head of the army, had barely stepped into the shoes of Pervez Musharraf, now a civilian president, than he was given a decision to make that could change the fate of the country. Militants fighting the Pakistani army in the Swat Valley have called for a ceasefire. If Kiani accepts, he will appease large sections of the country. If he refuses, he has Washington to deal with. - Syed Saleem Shahzad (Nov 29, '07)
The neo-imperialists strike back....
Jonah Goldberg:
At peace with Pax Americana
Does being the leader of the free world make the U.S. an empire? November 27, 2007
For lack of a better word, the United States is getting tagged as an "empire" from all quarters. Indeed, it's been a century since the notion of an American empire got such wide circulation, and back then Washington truly had designs on such expansion. (Google "Spanish-American War" if you're unfamiliar with this period.)
The empire charge has long been a staple bit of rhetoric lobbed about by those on the political extremes -- and has even bubbled up in the presidential race. Lefty Rep. Dennis Kucinich insists that we must abandon "the ambitions of empire." Hyper-libertarian Rep. Ron Paul says that America could afford healthcare if we weren't paying the freight on "running a world empire." The word "empire" substitutes for an argument; there are no good empires, just as there are no good fascists, or racists, or dictators.
In recent years, however, there's been an attempt to rehabilitate the e-word. Historian and former Times columnist Niall Ferguson deserves primary credit for the mainstreaming of the empire debate with his 2004 book "Colossus." He faced the empire charge head-on, saying, in effect, "Yeah, so what's your point?" The world needs a stabilizing, decent watchman to keep the bad guys in check and to promote trade, he argued, and the United States is the best candidate for the job.
Ferguson concedes, however, that the American people don't want an empire, don't think that they have one, and even our elites have no idea how to run one. As David Frum noted at the time in the National Review, Ferguson "repeatedly complains that his particular fowl neither waddles nor quacks -- and yet he insists it is nevertheless a duck."
Even as he strives to rehabilitate the idea of empire, Ferguson acknowledges that the word has limitations. It "is irrevocably the language of a bygone age," he writes at the end of his book. It has become irretrievably synonymous with villainy.
Critics of American foreign policy point to the fact that the U.S. does many things that empires once did -- police the seas, deploy militaries abroad, provide a lingua franca and a global currency -- and then rest their case. But noting that X does many of the same things as Y does not mean that X and Y are the same thing. The police provide protection, and so does the Mafia. Orphanages raise children, but they aren't parents. If your wife cleans your home, tell her she's the maid because maids also clean homes. See how well that logic works.
When they speak of the American empire, critics fall back on cartoonish notions, invoking Hollywoodized versions of ancient Rome or mothballed Marxist caricatures of the British Raj. But unlike the Romans or even the British, our garrisons can be ejected without firing a shot. We left the Philippines when asked. We may split from South Korea in the next few years under similar circumstances. Poland wants our military bases; Germany is grumpy about losing them. When Turkey, a U.S. ally and member of NATO, refused to let American troops invade Iraq from its territory, the U.S. government said "fine." We didn't invade Iraq for oil (all we needed to do to buy it was lift the embargo), and we've made it clear that we'll leave Iraq if the Iraqis ask.
The second verse of the anti-imperial lament, sung in unison by liberals and libertarians, goes like this: Expansion of the military-industrial complex leads to contraction of freedom at home. But historically, this is a hard sell. Women got the vote largely thanks to World War I. President Truman, that consummate Cold Warrior, integrated the Army, and the civil rights movement escalated its successes even as we escalated the Cold War and our presence in Vietnam. President Reagan built up the military even as he liberalized the economy.
Sure Naomi Wolfe, Frank Rich and other leftists believe that the imperialistic war on terror has turned America into a police state. But if they were right, they wouldn't be allowed to say that.
Two compelling new books help explain why our "empire" is different from the Soviet or Roman varieties. Walter Russell Mead's encyclopedic "God and Gold" argues that Anglo-American culture is uniquely well suited toward globalism, military success, capitalism and liberty. Amy Chua's brilliant "Day of Empire" confirms why: Successful "hyperpowers" tend to be more tolerant and inclusive than their competitors. Despite its flaws, Britain was the first truly liberal empire.
America has picked up where the British left off. Whatever sway the U.S. holds over far-flung reaches of the globe is derived from the fact that we have been, and hopefully shall continue to be, the leader of the free world, offering help and guidance, peace and prosperity, where and when we can, as best we can, and asking little in return. If that makes us an empire, so be it. But I think "leader of the free world" is the only label we'll ever need or -- one hopes -- ever want.
jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com
_________________________________________
Jonah Goldberg:
At peace with Pax Americana
Does being the leader of the free world make the U.S. an empire? November 27, 2007
For lack of a better word, the United States is getting tagged as an "empire" from all quarters. Indeed, it's been a century since the notion of an American empire got such wide circulation, and back then Washington truly had designs on such expansion. (Google "Spanish-American War" if you're unfamiliar with this period.)
The empire charge has long been a staple bit of rhetoric lobbed about by those on the political extremes -- and has even bubbled up in the presidential race. Lefty Rep. Dennis Kucinich insists that we must abandon "the ambitions of empire." Hyper-libertarian Rep. Ron Paul says that America could afford healthcare if we weren't paying the freight on "running a world empire." The word "empire" substitutes for an argument; there are no good empires, just as there are no good fascists, or racists, or dictators.
In recent years, however, there's been an attempt to rehabilitate the e-word. Historian and former Times columnist Niall Ferguson deserves primary credit for the mainstreaming of the empire debate with his 2004 book "Colossus." He faced the empire charge head-on, saying, in effect, "Yeah, so what's your point?" The world needs a stabilizing, decent watchman to keep the bad guys in check and to promote trade, he argued, and the United States is the best candidate for the job.
Ferguson concedes, however, that the American people don't want an empire, don't think that they have one, and even our elites have no idea how to run one. As David Frum noted at the time in the National Review, Ferguson "repeatedly complains that his particular fowl neither waddles nor quacks -- and yet he insists it is nevertheless a duck."
Even as he strives to rehabilitate the idea of empire, Ferguson acknowledges that the word has limitations. It "is irrevocably the language of a bygone age," he writes at the end of his book. It has become irretrievably synonymous with villainy.
Critics of American foreign policy point to the fact that the U.S. does many things that empires once did -- police the seas, deploy militaries abroad, provide a lingua franca and a global currency -- and then rest their case. But noting that X does many of the same things as Y does not mean that X and Y are the same thing. The police provide protection, and so does the Mafia. Orphanages raise children, but they aren't parents. If your wife cleans your home, tell her she's the maid because maids also clean homes. See how well that logic works.
When they speak of the American empire, critics fall back on cartoonish notions, invoking Hollywoodized versions of ancient Rome or mothballed Marxist caricatures of the British Raj. But unlike the Romans or even the British, our garrisons can be ejected without firing a shot. We left the Philippines when asked. We may split from South Korea in the next few years under similar circumstances. Poland wants our military bases; Germany is grumpy about losing them. When Turkey, a U.S. ally and member of NATO, refused to let American troops invade Iraq from its territory, the U.S. government said "fine." We didn't invade Iraq for oil (all we needed to do to buy it was lift the embargo), and we've made it clear that we'll leave Iraq if the Iraqis ask.
The second verse of the anti-imperial lament, sung in unison by liberals and libertarians, goes like this: Expansion of the military-industrial complex leads to contraction of freedom at home. But historically, this is a hard sell. Women got the vote largely thanks to World War I. President Truman, that consummate Cold Warrior, integrated the Army, and the civil rights movement escalated its successes even as we escalated the Cold War and our presence in Vietnam. President Reagan built up the military even as he liberalized the economy.
Sure Naomi Wolfe, Frank Rich and other leftists believe that the imperialistic war on terror has turned America into a police state. But if they were right, they wouldn't be allowed to say that.
Two compelling new books help explain why our "empire" is different from the Soviet or Roman varieties. Walter Russell Mead's encyclopedic "God and Gold" argues that Anglo-American culture is uniquely well suited toward globalism, military success, capitalism and liberty. Amy Chua's brilliant "Day of Empire" confirms why: Successful "hyperpowers" tend to be more tolerant and inclusive than their competitors. Despite its flaws, Britain was the first truly liberal empire.
America has picked up where the British left off. Whatever sway the U.S. holds over far-flung reaches of the globe is derived from the fact that we have been, and hopefully shall continue to be, the leader of the free world, offering help and guidance, peace and prosperity, where and when we can, as best we can, and asking little in return. If that makes us an empire, so be it. But I think "leader of the free world" is the only label we'll ever need or -- one hopes -- ever want.
jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com
_________________________________________
Separate Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan - Korb and Duggan, Baltimore Sun
Still No Way Out of Iraq? – New York Times editorial
Winning Baghdad – Ralph Peters, New York Post
A Partner For Dealing With Iran? - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Washington Post
Al Qaeda’s Emerging Defeat – Austin Bay, Washington Times
Musharraf Stands Alone – Washington Times editorial
Musharraf’s Tasks – London Times editorial
Citizen Musharraf - Chicago Tribune editorial
Should the U.S. Abandon Pervez Musharraf? – Markey and Haqqani, Foreign Policy
If You Thought Musharraf Was Bad - Mansoor Ijaz, Los Angeles Times
A Leader for Lebanon – Los Angeles Times editorial
Who are the Financiers of Islamization? – Diana West, Washington Times
Saudi Petrodollars at Work - Deborah Weiss, Human Events
Mosques May Not be So Moderate – Paul Goodman, London Daily Telegraph
A New Mideast Try - San Francisco Chronicle editorial
In Kosovo, Appearances Deceive – Christian Science Monitor editorial
Democracy’s Last Chance in Venezuela – USA Today editorial
Thorns in the Congo – Michael Gerson, Washington Post
Wounds of China’s Cultural Revolution? – David Brooks, New York Times
John Bolton: Diplomats are Dangerous – Con Coughlin, London Daily Telegraph
Our Changing Nation – Cal Thomas, Washington Times
A Teddy Bear Called Mohammed – London Daily Telegraph editorial
Still No Way Out of Iraq? – New York Times editorial
Winning Baghdad – Ralph Peters, New York Post
A Partner For Dealing With Iran? - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Washington Post
Al Qaeda’s Emerging Defeat – Austin Bay, Washington Times
Musharraf Stands Alone – Washington Times editorial
Musharraf’s Tasks – London Times editorial
Citizen Musharraf - Chicago Tribune editorial
Should the U.S. Abandon Pervez Musharraf? – Markey and Haqqani, Foreign Policy
If You Thought Musharraf Was Bad - Mansoor Ijaz, Los Angeles Times
A Leader for Lebanon – Los Angeles Times editorial
Who are the Financiers of Islamization? – Diana West, Washington Times
Saudi Petrodollars at Work - Deborah Weiss, Human Events
Mosques May Not be So Moderate – Paul Goodman, London Daily Telegraph
A New Mideast Try - San Francisco Chronicle editorial
In Kosovo, Appearances Deceive – Christian Science Monitor editorial
Democracy’s Last Chance in Venezuela – USA Today editorial
Thorns in the Congo – Michael Gerson, Washington Post
Wounds of China’s Cultural Revolution? – David Brooks, New York Times
John Bolton: Diplomats are Dangerous – Con Coughlin, London Daily Telegraph
Our Changing Nation – Cal Thomas, Washington Times
A Teddy Bear Called Mohammed – London Daily Telegraph editorial
Bill Clinton, Antiwar?
Purported bin Laden Message to Europe: Quit Afghan War
Panel Rebuffs White House Privilege Claim
A Tenuous 'Peace' in Anbar
Iraqi Lawmakers Protest US Guards
Signs of US-Syria Thaw After Summit
A Payoff for Syrians: Seats at the Table, at Least
Jordan Asked Nixon to Attack Syria, Declassified Papers Show
Kissinger in 1969: Israelis Most Likely to Use Nukes
Purported bin Laden Message to Europe: Quit Afghan War
Panel Rebuffs White House Privilege Claim
A Tenuous 'Peace' in Anbar
Iraqi Lawmakers Protest US Guards
Signs of US-Syria Thaw After Summit
A Payoff for Syrians: Seats at the Table, at Least
Jordan Asked Nixon to Attack Syria, Declassified Papers Show
Kissinger in 1969: Israelis Most Likely to Use Nukes
Symposium: Hitting Iran?By: Jamie Glazov
Is it high time for a pre-emptive strike on the Mullahs' nuclear facilities? A distinguished panel battles it out at Frontpage. More>
Iran War: American Military Versus Israel Firsters
By James Petras
Since 2003, the peace movement has practically vanished from the streets – in large part a product of its own self-destruction. The great majority of anti-war leaders opted for Democratic Party-electoral politics, a strategy that led to the successful election of a pro-war Democratic majority. Continue
By James Petras
Since 2003, the peace movement has practically vanished from the streets – in large part a product of its own self-destruction. The great majority of anti-war leaders opted for Democratic Party-electoral politics, a strategy that led to the successful election of a pro-war Democratic majority. Continue
Four years ago, long before he was prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert discussed his vision of Israel's borders in an interview with Ha'aretz reproduced below. In it he foreshadowed the theme of his most recent interview with that newspaper and put it into a context quite different from the recent peace pageant in Annapolis that may help clarify his intentions today. (The reference to the Geneva Accord is to a heads of agreement peace pact informally agreed between the PLO and an Israeli delegation led by Yossi Beilin which many at the time saw as demonstrating that negotiations in good faith could, contrary to the thesis of Israeli unilateralists, produce an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hence, through the Saudi-initiated Arab League proposal for normalization of relations with Israel in that context, to acceptance of Israel's legitimacy by all the Arabs. )
'Maximum Jews, minimum Palestinians'
Ehud Olmert speaks out: Israel must espouse unilateral separation - withdrawal to lines of its own choosing. It's the only answer to the demographic danger, says this latter-day realist.
13/11/2003
By David Landau
Ehud Olmert delivers his message in euphemisms. Delicate, cautiously crafted ellipses, laden with nuanced significance. The vice prime minister, and minister of industry, and of labor, and of communications, and of the Israel Lands Authority, and of the Israel Broadcasting Authority, ensconced in his elegant new government office, wreathed in his trademark cigar smoke, is plainly reluctant to ruffle any feathers. Especially those of the man he hopes to succeed, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. His purpose is to sound a note of urgency, without even a hint of criticism.
But his message comes through clearly, nevertheless. "There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement - and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement - we need to implement a unilateral alternative."
When Sharon was challenged recently on the demographic issue, as he relaxed with aides and newsmen in his Moscow hotel lounge, he fobbed off the questioner with vague predictions of future aliyah and rosy reminiscences of the tiny pre-state Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine). Olmert invokes no such comforting calculations. "We don't have unlimited time," he says. "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against `occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.
"Of course I would prefer a negotiated agreement [for two states]. But I personally doubt that such an agreement can be reached within the time-frame available to us."
Olmert's "formula for the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem." Large settlements such as Ariel would "obviously" be carved into Israel.
"Maximum Jews, minimum Palestinians" - this harks back to the language of long ago. And indeed, Olmert hankers unabashedly for those more hopeful times. "Twenty-three years ago," he says, "Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation. We won't need the Palestinians' support for that. What we would need is to pull ourselves together, to determine where the line should run."
Maximum, minimum, Dayan, unilateral line - all these seem to add up to large-scale withdrawal from the West Bank and probably full-scale withdrawal from Gaza. Hardly the stock-in-trade of the traditional Likud politician. "These are my own personal contemplations," Olmert says, "not yet evolved into a full strategy. I speak only for myself ... If I wanted to unfold a detailed blueprint I would do so. At this point, this is what I want to say."
As for Likud tradition, the prime minister's pronouncements on Palestinian statehood were sharp departures from that tradition, too, he says. Fundamentally, he adds, his own unilateralist ideas are at one with Sharon's repeated assertions that he would make "painful concessions" to achieve peace.
The subtext is clear enough, though Olmert, deft and careful, is not prepared to articulate it. The cabinet as presently constituted would presumably not endorse his proposed unilateralism. The two far-right coalition partners and several Likud ministers - but not Sharon, Olmert believes - would see it as defeatism. In terms of practical politics, therefore, the acceptance of Olmert's ostensibly still-inchoate ideas depends on the return of Labor to the national unity fold.
Olmert does not say so in so many words, but clearly he believes that Sharon himself will move in this direction, wooing Labor to join him in a drastic, unilateral act of separation. Olmert's Delphic formulation is: "I believe that in the course of time there might be a likelihood that the government might prefer this approach to the present situation and to the well-founded fear of demographic hazard."
The fence, now being built amid much controversy, would "ultimately become part of" the unilateral plan, Olmert says with deliberate vagueness. Unlike Ehud Barak, who advocates a unilateral withdrawal expressly depicted as temporary, pending negotiations, Olmert says his unilateralism "would inevitably preclude a dialogue with the Palestinians for at least 25 years." It would stand a good chance, he says, of winning "a degree of perhaps tacit understanding" from the international community, or at least from the important parts of it.
Olmert says his scheme does not reflect the lack of victory after three years of bloody intifada, but rather "the lack of realistic chances for a negotiated agreement in which we can live peacefully and comfortably." Drawing a unilateral line would probably not mean an absolute end of terrorism. That is perhaps unattainable. "But if we have total separation, it would reduce the terror to a manageable level - and enable us as a society to focus our energies on our own needs, our own agenda, our own mission."
Political insiders say Olmert has been dropping unilateralist hints for two or three months, but drawing back when urged to speak out. He himself says he has not debated his thinking with cabinet colleagues, preferring to await the right diplomatic and political constellation.
Quite possibly his wait was cut short by the publication last month of the Yossi Beilin-Yasser Abed Rabbo "Geneva Accord" and this has brought him to speak out now. Geneva demonstrably rattled the government - witness Sharon's furious "stab in the back" condemnation of the lengthy, unofficial negotiation that produced the accord. The continuing accolades that the accord has won from world leaders - Colin Powell was the latest to praise it last weekend - have added to the government anger and frustration over Beilin's coup, as well as over the earlier Ami Ayalon-Sari Nusseibeh agreement, which is also garnering support at home and abroad.
Olmert keeps harping on Beilin. Powell's praise, he insists, "does not accurately reflect the attitude of the president ... It does not mean that the U.S. endorses Geneva."
Only through a wholesale abdication of realism, he maintains, can anyone seriously believe that Geneva is a pattern for negotiated peace. A realist like himself admits to "a total disbelief in the prospect of an agreement." But, determined that Israel not be drawn passively by events into demographic disaster, the realist proposes an active, unilateral response.
'Maximum Jews, minimum Palestinians'
Ehud Olmert speaks out: Israel must espouse unilateral separation - withdrawal to lines of its own choosing. It's the only answer to the demographic danger, says this latter-day realist.
13/11/2003
By David Landau
Ehud Olmert delivers his message in euphemisms. Delicate, cautiously crafted ellipses, laden with nuanced significance. The vice prime minister, and minister of industry, and of labor, and of communications, and of the Israel Lands Authority, and of the Israel Broadcasting Authority, ensconced in his elegant new government office, wreathed in his trademark cigar smoke, is plainly reluctant to ruffle any feathers. Especially those of the man he hopes to succeed, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. His purpose is to sound a note of urgency, without even a hint of criticism.
But his message comes through clearly, nevertheless. "There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement - and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement - we need to implement a unilateral alternative."
When Sharon was challenged recently on the demographic issue, as he relaxed with aides and newsmen in his Moscow hotel lounge, he fobbed off the questioner with vague predictions of future aliyah and rosy reminiscences of the tiny pre-state Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine). Olmert invokes no such comforting calculations. "We don't have unlimited time," he says. "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against `occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.
"Of course I would prefer a negotiated agreement [for two states]. But I personally doubt that such an agreement can be reached within the time-frame available to us."
Olmert's "formula for the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem." Large settlements such as Ariel would "obviously" be carved into Israel.
"Maximum Jews, minimum Palestinians" - this harks back to the language of long ago. And indeed, Olmert hankers unabashedly for those more hopeful times. "Twenty-three years ago," he says, "Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation. We won't need the Palestinians' support for that. What we would need is to pull ourselves together, to determine where the line should run."
Maximum, minimum, Dayan, unilateral line - all these seem to add up to large-scale withdrawal from the West Bank and probably full-scale withdrawal from Gaza. Hardly the stock-in-trade of the traditional Likud politician. "These are my own personal contemplations," Olmert says, "not yet evolved into a full strategy. I speak only for myself ... If I wanted to unfold a detailed blueprint I would do so. At this point, this is what I want to say."
As for Likud tradition, the prime minister's pronouncements on Palestinian statehood were sharp departures from that tradition, too, he says. Fundamentally, he adds, his own unilateralist ideas are at one with Sharon's repeated assertions that he would make "painful concessions" to achieve peace.
The subtext is clear enough, though Olmert, deft and careful, is not prepared to articulate it. The cabinet as presently constituted would presumably not endorse his proposed unilateralism. The two far-right coalition partners and several Likud ministers - but not Sharon, Olmert believes - would see it as defeatism. In terms of practical politics, therefore, the acceptance of Olmert's ostensibly still-inchoate ideas depends on the return of Labor to the national unity fold.
Olmert does not say so in so many words, but clearly he believes that Sharon himself will move in this direction, wooing Labor to join him in a drastic, unilateral act of separation. Olmert's Delphic formulation is: "I believe that in the course of time there might be a likelihood that the government might prefer this approach to the present situation and to the well-founded fear of demographic hazard."
The fence, now being built amid much controversy, would "ultimately become part of" the unilateral plan, Olmert says with deliberate vagueness. Unlike Ehud Barak, who advocates a unilateral withdrawal expressly depicted as temporary, pending negotiations, Olmert says his unilateralism "would inevitably preclude a dialogue with the Palestinians for at least 25 years." It would stand a good chance, he says, of winning "a degree of perhaps tacit understanding" from the international community, or at least from the important parts of it.
Olmert says his scheme does not reflect the lack of victory after three years of bloody intifada, but rather "the lack of realistic chances for a negotiated agreement in which we can live peacefully and comfortably." Drawing a unilateral line would probably not mean an absolute end of terrorism. That is perhaps unattainable. "But if we have total separation, it would reduce the terror to a manageable level - and enable us as a society to focus our energies on our own needs, our own agenda, our own mission."
Political insiders say Olmert has been dropping unilateralist hints for two or three months, but drawing back when urged to speak out. He himself says he has not debated his thinking with cabinet colleagues, preferring to await the right diplomatic and political constellation.
Quite possibly his wait was cut short by the publication last month of the Yossi Beilin-Yasser Abed Rabbo "Geneva Accord" and this has brought him to speak out now. Geneva demonstrably rattled the government - witness Sharon's furious "stab in the back" condemnation of the lengthy, unofficial negotiation that produced the accord. The continuing accolades that the accord has won from world leaders - Colin Powell was the latest to praise it last weekend - have added to the government anger and frustration over Beilin's coup, as well as over the earlier Ami Ayalon-Sari Nusseibeh agreement, which is also garnering support at home and abroad.
Olmert keeps harping on Beilin. Powell's praise, he insists, "does not accurately reflect the attitude of the president ... It does not mean that the U.S. endorses Geneva."
Only through a wholesale abdication of realism, he maintains, can anyone seriously believe that Geneva is a pattern for negotiated peace. A realist like himself admits to "a total disbelief in the prospect of an agreement." But, determined that Israel not be drawn passively by events into demographic disaster, the realist proposes an active, unilateral response.
Grasp the Promise of Annapolis
<http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2007/11/grasp_the_promise_of_annapolis.html ://http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/20...annapolis.html >
From today's Forward <http://www.forward.com/articles/12134/> (America's leading Jewish
newspaper).
Daniel Levy
Even the most hardened of Middle East cynics could be excused for
momentarily feeling a fluttering of hope after witnessing the scenes at
this week's peace conference in Annapolis, Md.
Israel's much-maligned prime minister, Ehud Olmert, conducted himself
with consumate dignity, displaying a rare capacity to combine unabashed
national pride with sincere empathy for the other. Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas, for his part, met Olmert's outstretched hand with an
unflinching commitment to a negotiated resolution of this bloody
conflict and to a realization of his own nation's aspirations that would
not be at Israel's expense. Both men have developed a degree of genuine
mutual respect and appreciation, and they were on display at Annapolis.
Only President Bush came up short, sticking to a simplistic
good-versus-evil narrative that was not only patronizing, divisive and
lacking any resonance with the Arab world, but might very well prove
counterproductive. Nonetheless, the Bush administration, and especially
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, can allow itself a gentle pat on
the back this weekend: A joint statement was achieved, the conference
was well attended, the speeches were uplifting, and Bush personally
committed himself to the process.
The self-congratulatory moment, though, should be a fleeting one.
This week's peace conference assiduously avoided even a flirtation with
the serious substance and content of a peace agreement. The warm words
at Annapolis will be followed by pledges of hard cash at a donors'
conference scheduled for Paris in three weeks, but after that the
testing ground returns to the far more hostile terrain of the Middle East.
If, several weeks from now, the negotiations are perceived to have
stalled and the situation on the ground to have deteriorated or just
stayed the same, then the smiling Annapolis summiteers will turn
ashen-faced and their detractors back home will claim vindication. Such
a scenario is all too imaginable; a return to mutual recrimination,
blame games and American disengagement would be perhaps the bookmaker's
favorite.
As coincidence would have it, the Annapolis gathering fell on the same
week as the 60th anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations
General Assembly of Resolution 181. Separated by six decades, these
events are in fact intimately and perhaps decisively linked.
Celebrations in Tel Aviv, November 29, 1947
Anyone who has supped at the table of Zionist history has that night and
the U.N. vote indelibly etched into memory: 33 in favor, 13 against, 10
abstentions. This was the great moment of international recognition for
the Zionist cause.
The rest is history: The Arabs rejected partition, brave young Israel
survived a war of independence and a threatening alliance in 1967, and
the country has since grown middle-aged awaiting an Arab peace partner.
All national narratives tend to play fast and loose with the historical
record, and ours is no exception.
So where do we find ourselves in November 2007? Sixteen Arab states,
including all of Israel's neighbors, attended the Annapolis conference.
This comes five years after the Arab League adopted an initiative that
holds out the prospect of recognition and normal relations for Israel
with the Arab world once comprehensive peace is achieved.
Even before that, at the Madrid conference in 1991 and at the Sharm el
Sheikh summit in 1996, the Arab states stood alongside Israel when the
United States convened previous peacemaking efforts. Some dismiss the
significance of these developments and point to the curmudgeonly refusal
of the Saudis to shake hands, but as Olmert himself quipped this week,
"What did you expect, tea in Riyadh tomorrow?" The Arab states have
actually softened their own position by taking steps toward
normalization in advance of Israel ending the occupation.
The historic success of 1947 was a territorial division whereby 55% of
mandatory Palestine would become a national home for the Jewish people,
while 45% would be an Arab-Palestinian state. The prospect held out by
the Arab initiative and the Annapolis summit is of Arab, Palestinian and
world recognition and support for an Israel on 78% of that original
territory.
You do the math. The Arab world is saying yes to less than half of what
it was offered — and rejected — 60 years ago.
Some may ask why we ought to be defeatist now; history, such critics
have been known to argue, proves that the longer we hold out, the more
we get. This approach ignores the devastating damage done to Israel's
standing in the world and to its security, as well as disregards how the
country's priorities have been skewed by the ongoing occupation and
absence of internationally recognized permanent borders.
Are we really prepared to continue paying over the coming decades the
human, material and moral price in order to edge the percentage of land
we can call ours from 78% to, what, 80% or 81%?
Grasping the promise of the Annapolis conference and the Arab initiative
means saying yes to 78% and withdrawing to the 1967 lines on the West
Bank, including East Jerusalem, and on the Golan Heights. There can be
reciprocal and minor modifications to those lines, such as land swaps,
that would allow for incorporating the vast majority of settlers into
Israel's new and internationally recognized borders, but the basic
parameters of the deal are pretty clear. Israel would be wise to seize
the post-Annapolis moment, while the Arab consensus on the Saudi
initiative still holds and before there is a further waning of American
influence in the region.
It would be cozy and comforting if all this could be achieved in
accordance with Bush's division of the world into moderates and
extremists, but that is as intellectually lazy as it is practically
unachievable. The challenge to the Annapolis framework is not only the
need to summon the political courage to embrace the 78% option, it is
also to build a more inclusive process that creates openings for actors
who will be crucial to the credibility and sustainability of any secure
peace — in particular Hamas. Engaging Hamas, even indirectly, will not
be easy, but Hamas, too, is inching toward an acceptance of the 1967
lines. In the context of an agreement that enjoys Arab consensus, an end
of occupation and an acceptance of its own political role, Hamas's
acquiescence is far from inconceivable.
Annapolis represents Israel getting to yes with the Arab world. Now
Israel and its supporters in America should declare a resounding yes to
78%. Last time I checked, we were a people who recognized a good deal
when we saw one.
<http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2007/11/grasp_the_promise_of_annapolis.html ://http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/20...annapolis.html >
From today's Forward <http://www.forward.com/articles/12134/> (America's leading Jewish
newspaper).
Daniel Levy
Even the most hardened of Middle East cynics could be excused for
momentarily feeling a fluttering of hope after witnessing the scenes at
this week's peace conference in Annapolis, Md.
Israel's much-maligned prime minister, Ehud Olmert, conducted himself
with consumate dignity, displaying a rare capacity to combine unabashed
national pride with sincere empathy for the other. Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas, for his part, met Olmert's outstretched hand with an
unflinching commitment to a negotiated resolution of this bloody
conflict and to a realization of his own nation's aspirations that would
not be at Israel's expense. Both men have developed a degree of genuine
mutual respect and appreciation, and they were on display at Annapolis.
Only President Bush came up short, sticking to a simplistic
good-versus-evil narrative that was not only patronizing, divisive and
lacking any resonance with the Arab world, but might very well prove
counterproductive. Nonetheless, the Bush administration, and especially
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, can allow itself a gentle pat on
the back this weekend: A joint statement was achieved, the conference
was well attended, the speeches were uplifting, and Bush personally
committed himself to the process.
The self-congratulatory moment, though, should be a fleeting one.
This week's peace conference assiduously avoided even a flirtation with
the serious substance and content of a peace agreement. The warm words
at Annapolis will be followed by pledges of hard cash at a donors'
conference scheduled for Paris in three weeks, but after that the
testing ground returns to the far more hostile terrain of the Middle East.
If, several weeks from now, the negotiations are perceived to have
stalled and the situation on the ground to have deteriorated or just
stayed the same, then the smiling Annapolis summiteers will turn
ashen-faced and their detractors back home will claim vindication. Such
a scenario is all too imaginable; a return to mutual recrimination,
blame games and American disengagement would be perhaps the bookmaker's
favorite.
As coincidence would have it, the Annapolis gathering fell on the same
week as the 60th anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations
General Assembly of Resolution 181. Separated by six decades, these
events are in fact intimately and perhaps decisively linked.
Celebrations in Tel Aviv, November 29, 1947
Anyone who has supped at the table of Zionist history has that night and
the U.N. vote indelibly etched into memory: 33 in favor, 13 against, 10
abstentions. This was the great moment of international recognition for
the Zionist cause.
The rest is history: The Arabs rejected partition, brave young Israel
survived a war of independence and a threatening alliance in 1967, and
the country has since grown middle-aged awaiting an Arab peace partner.
All national narratives tend to play fast and loose with the historical
record, and ours is no exception.
So where do we find ourselves in November 2007? Sixteen Arab states,
including all of Israel's neighbors, attended the Annapolis conference.
This comes five years after the Arab League adopted an initiative that
holds out the prospect of recognition and normal relations for Israel
with the Arab world once comprehensive peace is achieved.
Even before that, at the Madrid conference in 1991 and at the Sharm el
Sheikh summit in 1996, the Arab states stood alongside Israel when the
United States convened previous peacemaking efforts. Some dismiss the
significance of these developments and point to the curmudgeonly refusal
of the Saudis to shake hands, but as Olmert himself quipped this week,
"What did you expect, tea in Riyadh tomorrow?" The Arab states have
actually softened their own position by taking steps toward
normalization in advance of Israel ending the occupation.
The historic success of 1947 was a territorial division whereby 55% of
mandatory Palestine would become a national home for the Jewish people,
while 45% would be an Arab-Palestinian state. The prospect held out by
the Arab initiative and the Annapolis summit is of Arab, Palestinian and
world recognition and support for an Israel on 78% of that original
territory.
You do the math. The Arab world is saying yes to less than half of what
it was offered — and rejected — 60 years ago.
Some may ask why we ought to be defeatist now; history, such critics
have been known to argue, proves that the longer we hold out, the more
we get. This approach ignores the devastating damage done to Israel's
standing in the world and to its security, as well as disregards how the
country's priorities have been skewed by the ongoing occupation and
absence of internationally recognized permanent borders.
Are we really prepared to continue paying over the coming decades the
human, material and moral price in order to edge the percentage of land
we can call ours from 78% to, what, 80% or 81%?
Grasping the promise of the Annapolis conference and the Arab initiative
means saying yes to 78% and withdrawing to the 1967 lines on the West
Bank, including East Jerusalem, and on the Golan Heights. There can be
reciprocal and minor modifications to those lines, such as land swaps,
that would allow for incorporating the vast majority of settlers into
Israel's new and internationally recognized borders, but the basic
parameters of the deal are pretty clear. Israel would be wise to seize
the post-Annapolis moment, while the Arab consensus on the Saudi
initiative still holds and before there is a further waning of American
influence in the region.
It would be cozy and comforting if all this could be achieved in
accordance with Bush's division of the world into moderates and
extremists, but that is as intellectually lazy as it is practically
unachievable. The challenge to the Annapolis framework is not only the
need to summon the political courage to embrace the 78% option, it is
also to build a more inclusive process that creates openings for actors
who will be crucial to the credibility and sustainability of any secure
peace — in particular Hamas. Engaging Hamas, even indirectly, will not
be easy, but Hamas, too, is inching toward an acceptance of the 1967
lines. In the context of an agreement that enjoys Arab consensus, an end
of occupation and an acceptance of its own political role, Hamas's
acquiescence is far from inconceivable.
Annapolis represents Israel getting to yes with the Arab world. Now
Israel and its supporters in America should declare a resounding yes to
78%. Last time I checked, we were a people who recognized a good deal
when we saw one.
Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update November 30, 2007
THE GATES CRITIQUE EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, NOVEMBER 29): Secretary of Defense Robert Gates displayed solid news judgment in presenting a valid critique of recent US efforts to meet contemporary challenges almost entirely by military means. His prescription for righting the imbalance between hard power and soft power should be debated by the presidential candidates of both parties. What Gates left unsaid, but should have said, is that America will not be able to retrieve its squandered soft power without showing a decent respect for the international treaties and organizations of a world order that was laboriously constructed by previous US administrations.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...ritique?mode=PF
TRANSCRIPT OF GATES SPEECH AT
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech...x?speechid=1199
US PLANS TO 'FIGHT THE NET' REVEALED - ADAM BROOKES, BBC PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (INFOSHOP NEWS, NOVEMBER 29; first appeared January 27, 2006): From The newly declassified "Information Operations Roadmap" (2003): "nformation intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience."
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...p;query=brookes
DOCUMENT AT
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB...ops_roadmap.pdf
BIDEN: DIPLOMACY CAN AID U.S. - MIKE MCCORD (SEACOSTONLINE, NOVEMBER 30): Presidential candidate Joe Biden looked to recent history and the uses of American power in places such as Bosnia and Kosovo that have proved very successful and stabilizing. Biden, chairman of the foreign relations committee, said the world is waiting to pitch in and that he hopes to leave a legacy of restoring the country's moral legitimacy and the ability to use widespread public diplomacy.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../NEWS/711300438
THE REPUBLICAN WAY OF WAR - KEVIN MATTSON (GUARDIAN, NOVEMBER 29): Why bother explaining what you stand for when what you stand for is so incredibly self-evident and obvious? This explains why Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes's attempts at public diplomacy have fallen flat on their face and why she recently resigned from the state department. Assuredness about virtue is no recipe for public diplomacy.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/kevin_...way_of_war.html
INDIA CAN OFFER QUIET DIPLOMACY - JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA (ECONOMIC TIMES, INDIA, NOVEMBER 30): The real issue is not what India can, or rather could have contributed at the US-hosted Mid-East peace conference in Annapolis. It is what India might contribute now that the conference is over. First, we can offer quiet diplomacy to help in those tracks where change is possible, and that itself will be something of a balm for those suffering from too much public diplomacy, which is the case with all of West Asia.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articl...8,prtpage-1.cms
ANNAPOLIS, A CHANCE TO JOIN THE MIDEAST PEACE TRAIN - ENDY M. BAYUNI (JAKARTA POST, JAKARTA, NOVEMBER 30): If Indonesia is changing its Middle East policy in the wake of the country's participation in Annapolis, and is seeking a more active role in the peace process, then the government had better work on its public diplomacy on the home front as well.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadli....A05&irec=4
UKRAINE'S PUBLIC DIPLOMACY SAYS: WE ARE NOT RUSSIA ? (KIM ANDREW ELLIOT DISCUSSING INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY, NOVEMBER 29): "'Russia wants to re-establish itself as a world leader' whereas 'all Ukrainians want to be European.'"
http://www.kimandrewelliott.com/index.php?id=2832
US, OTHERS PLEDGE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): The United States, Britain and France publicly pledged Thursday to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of journalists in war zones. The three countries became the first signatories of the Geneva Convention to accept a new nonbinding accord on protecting correspondents in conflict, said the International Committee of the Red Cross, which oversees compliance with the 1949 treaty on the rules of war.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-R...agewanted=print
AMERICAN BRAIN DRAIN REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 30): Foreign students comprised 44% of science and engineering doctorates last year. Closing the door to foreign professionals puts US companies at a competitive disadvantage and pushes jobs out of the country.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196389637...ew_and_outlooks
THE ALGEBRA OF OCCUPATION - CONN HALLINAN (FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, NOVEMBER 27): ?Winning over the population,? continues to be the illusion of every occupier. Testifying before Congress, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, 'Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure, and promoting good government.' And then there is the real world.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4766
AL QAEDA'S EMERGING DEFEAT - AUSTIN BAY (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
REOPENING OF LOOTED MUSEUM SIGNALS A CALMER BAGHDAD - JON SWAIN (SUNDAY TIMES, NOVEMBER 25): Nearly five years after it was ransacked by hordes of looters in the wake of Saddam Hussein?s overthrow, the Iraq museum in Baghdad is about to open its doors again.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2937102.ece
IRAQI TV, THEN AND NOW: 'FRIENDS', 'DR. PHIL' AND SATELLITE DISHES TAKE PLACE OF ACTION FLICKS AND SADDAM (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 28)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196202137...s_editors_picks
IRAQ LACKS PLAN ON THE RETURN OF REFUGEES, MILITARY SAYS - MICHAEL R. GORDON AND STEPHEN FARRELL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 30)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/world/mi...agewanted=print
PROCESSING OF IRAQI REFUGEES IMPROVES, OFFICIALS SAY: STATE DEPARTMENT EXPECTS AS MANY AS 12,000 TO ARRIVE IN THE UNITED STATES NEXT YEAR - WALTER PINCUS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 30)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112902227.html
IRAQIS' QUALITY OF LIFE MARKED BY SLOW GAINS, MANY SETBACKS: WORRIES ABOUND THAT GOVERNMENT ISN'T UP TO TASK OF PROVIDING SERVICES - AMIT R. PALEY AND KAREN DEYOUNG (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 30)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112902472.html
QUIET BEFORE A NEW IRAQ STORM? IN THE FOX'S LAIR - WILLIAM S. LIND (COUNTERPUNCH, NOVEMBER 28): In past wars, quiet periods at the front have often preceded a "big push" by one side or both. Such may prove to be the case in Iraq as well, at least as far as Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army are concerned.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lind11272007.html
STILL NO WAY OUT - EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): Iraq's leaders are no closer to making the political deals that are the only hope for building a self-sustaining peace. Americans need to ask themselves the questions Mr. Bush is refusing to answer: Is this country signing on to keep the peace in Iraq indefinitely? If so, how many American and Iraqi deaths a month are an acceptable price? If not, what?s the plan for getting out?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/...agewanted=print
BUSH'S NEXT PREEMPTIVE STRIKE - HAROLD MEYERSON (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 29): On Monday, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a declaration pledging that their governments would put in place a long-term political and security pact sometime next year. What Bush will almost surely be pushing for is permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, enshrined in a pact he can sign a few months before he leaves office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112802050.html
BUSH ISN'T THE ONLY DECIDER: HE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO LOCK IN AN IRAQ TREATY WITHOUT CONGRESS' APPROVAL - BRUCE ACKERMAN (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 29): President Bush is again in legacy mode. His White House "czar" on Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, explained that the administration intends to reach a final agreement between the two countries by July 31, 2008. In describing the negotiations, he made a remarkable suggestion: Only the Iraqi parliament, not the US Congress, needs to formally approve the agreement.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
THERE'S REASON FOR HOPE IN IRAQ, BUT MANY HURDLES REMAIN TRUDY RUBIN (BALTIMORESUN.COM, NOVEMBER 27): Remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq wait in the wings. Radical Shiite militias retain their arms. The al-Maliki government is weak and inept. But the current security lull at least provides a base on which to build something sustainable before U.S. troops start to withdraw. This Iraqi opening deserves a chance.
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.rubin27nov27,0,2204334.story
WHERE TO FIND PROGRESS IN IRAQ: BAGHDAD SHOULDN'T BE THE COUNTRY'S ONLY BELLWETHER - JON P. DORSCHNER (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NOVEMBER 29): After years of violence, insurgency, and uprisings, the current window of relative peace may present an unprecedented opportunity to move ahead economically and politically. Provincial people and their governments appear determined to grab this opportunity and run with it, with or without the government in Baghdad. And that is a legitimate sign of progress for the country. (Jon P. Dorschner is a career foreign-service officer and the Iraq provincial affairs officer in the Italian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team in Dhi Qar Province. This piece was subject to State Department review.)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1129/p09s02-coop.htm
POSSIBLE DEMOCRAT CHOICE AS NEXT SECRETARY OF STATE SAYS PENTAGON IS FIERCELY OPPOSED TO STRIKE: HOLBROOKE SAYS BUSH WON'T ATTACK IRAN - JEFF BERG (COUNTERPUNCH, NOVEMBER 28)
http://www.counterpunch.org/berg11272007.html
U.S. WANTS TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ON IRANIAN NONINTERVENTION PACT - REESE ERLICH (BATIMORESUN.COM, NOVEMBER 28): President Bush and leading Democratic presidential candidates have said a military attack on Iran is a viable option. Yet the 1981 Algiers Accords, backed by Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, prohibit such an attack. SEE BELOW ITEM 50.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...661,print.story
AFTER ANNAPOLIS: NEGOTIATIONS TO COME AND A FUTURE STILL UNKNOWN EDWARD M. GOMEZ (WORLD VIEWS, SF GATE, NOVEMBER 28)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate...;entry_id=22292
IN MIDEAST PEACE PROCESS, HOW BIG A ROLE WILL BUSH PLAY? BUSH APPEARS TO BE PLAYING DOWN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE US IN THE PROCESS, BUT SOME EXPERTS SEE A NEED FOR AN ACTIVE OUTSIDE ARBITER - HOWARD LAFRANCHI (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NOVEMBER 29)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1129/p12s01-usfp.htm
BUSH'S NEXT STEP? WHO KNOWS? - DAN FROOMKIN (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, NOVEMBER 29): When it comes to achieving peace in the Middle East, President Bush seems to have no idea what to do next.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112901224.html
THE WHITE HOUSE 'AFTER PARTY' - DAN FROOMKIN (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, NOVEMBER 28): Bush's flirtation with Middle East summitry looks more like an attempt to humor his beloved secretary of state than it does a departure from his hands-off and ardently pro-Israeli posture of the past seven years. SEE ALSO BELOW ITEMS 54-57.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2801309_pf.html
AFGHAN COUNTERINSURGENCY BY THE BOOK - FAWZIA SHEIKH (ASIA TIMES, NOVEMBER 28): The Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Academy, a work in progress, aims to teach counterinsurgency practices to newly arrived Western trainers sent to embed with the Afghan security forces, as well as to coalition forces and to senior members of the Afghan military, police and intelligence services. The academy received US$1 million this year but is lobbying for an annual budget of $7-9 million to spend on paying instructors and for building infrastructure.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK29Df01.html SEE ALSO
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196383409...=hps_us_pageone
A 'SURGE' FOR AFGHANISTAN? A MARINE PROPOSAL UNDER DISCUSSION THIS WEEK WOULD REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ - GORDON LUBOLD (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NOVEMBER 29)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1129/p01s05-usmi.html
THE GENERAL STANDS ALONE EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): Pakistan's democratic opposition is embittered at the continued U.S. support for Mr. Musharraf, and will probably boycott the January elections.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
THE GENERAL RETIRES: BUT STILL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF CLINGS TO POWER, PROLONGING PAKISTAN'S CRISIS ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 29): If Pakistan's moderate center is to have a chance of defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Mr. Musharraf will have to retire from public life. The sooner he and Pakistan's army get that message from Washington, the quicker the current crisis can be ended.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112802114.html
IF YOU THOUGHT MUSARRAF WAS BAD . . .: FORMER PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTERS SHARIF AND BHUTTO ARE HARDLY THE RIGHT LEADERS TO NUTURE DEMOCRACY AND FIGHT TERRORISM - MANSOOR IJAZ (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): Given the players and the circumstances, the elections in January will resolve little. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
POLITICAL ISLAM AND EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY EFFWIT (SWEDISH MEATBALLS CONFIDENTIAL, NOVEMBER 29): The Centre for European Policy Studies released an important report yesterday dealing with the necessity for the E.U. (and by extension, the U.S.) to do a better job of engaging Islamic political parties in the Arab world. One conclusion is that the heavy lifting will likely have to be conducted through the Europeans, due to the toxicity of the U.S. brand in the opinion of the target audience.
http://swedemeat.blogspot.com/2007/11/poli...an-foreign.html
A PARTNER FOR DEALING WITH IRAN? THE LESSONS OF U.S.-CHINA COOPERATION ON PYONGYANG - ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 30): A comprehensive, strategic dialogue between the United States and China regarding the relevance of their shared experience dealing with North Korea to the potential crisis with Iran could be timely and historically expedient.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2901876_pf.html
SHUTTING UP VENEZUELA'S CHÁVEZ - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 29): Chávez's grab for socialist-emperor status is grotesque and dangerous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/opinion/...agewanted=print
AMERICA'S GULAG GOES BEFORE THE COURT - MARIE COCCO (TRUTHDIG, NOVEMBER 28): It has been more than three years since the Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo detainees indeed have a right to contest their confinement before a U.S. court, and that the circumstances under which they are held?without charge, without having seen the government?s evidence against them and without the ability to gather evidence of their own?violate the Constitution and various treaties the United States has signed. But that ruling in Rasul v. Bush didn?t prompt compliance. It touched off a round of cynical circumvention.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200711...fore_the_court/
GET SERIOUS [REVIEW OF CONTAINMENT: REBUILDING A STRATEGY AGAINST GLOBAL TERROR BY IAN SHAPIRO] - JAMES P. RUBIN (NEW REPUBLIC, NOVEMBER 29): If the know-one-thing opponents of the Iraq war such as Ian Shapiro get the upper hand in the campaign debate, and in history's first judgments, there is a real risk that the pendulum of American politics will overshoot the responsible mark, and post-Iraq wisdom will turn into post-Iraq folly.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...2d-70f3e723f113
REPORT: RICE COMPARES LIFE IN U.S. SOUTH TO PALESTINIANS' PLIGHT ?HAARETZ, NOVEMBER 28)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929499.html
RICE'S WAY: RESTRAINT IN QUEST FOR PEACE - HELENE COOPER (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 29): One thing is clear: the Rice approach to Middle East diplomacy is far more restrained than that of her predecessors, and it consists of pushing Israel -- as well as her boss, President Bush -- only so far, while putting off the big, hard fights until the end.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/washingt...agewanted=print
THE GATES CRITIQUE EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, NOVEMBER 29): Secretary of Defense Robert Gates displayed solid news judgment in presenting a valid critique of recent US efforts to meet contemporary challenges almost entirely by military means. His prescription for righting the imbalance between hard power and soft power should be debated by the presidential candidates of both parties. What Gates left unsaid, but should have said, is that America will not be able to retrieve its squandered soft power without showing a decent respect for the international treaties and organizations of a world order that was laboriously constructed by previous US administrations.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...ritique?mode=PF
TRANSCRIPT OF GATES SPEECH AT
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech...x?speechid=1199
US PLANS TO 'FIGHT THE NET' REVEALED - ADAM BROOKES, BBC PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (INFOSHOP NEWS, NOVEMBER 29; first appeared January 27, 2006): From The newly declassified "Information Operations Roadmap" (2003): "nformation intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience."
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...p;query=brookes
DOCUMENT AT
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB...ops_roadmap.pdf
BIDEN: DIPLOMACY CAN AID U.S. - MIKE MCCORD (SEACOSTONLINE, NOVEMBER 30): Presidential candidate Joe Biden looked to recent history and the uses of American power in places such as Bosnia and Kosovo that have proved very successful and stabilizing. Biden, chairman of the foreign relations committee, said the world is waiting to pitch in and that he hopes to leave a legacy of restoring the country's moral legitimacy and the ability to use widespread public diplomacy.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../NEWS/711300438
THE REPUBLICAN WAY OF WAR - KEVIN MATTSON (GUARDIAN, NOVEMBER 29): Why bother explaining what you stand for when what you stand for is so incredibly self-evident and obvious? This explains why Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes's attempts at public diplomacy have fallen flat on their face and why she recently resigned from the state department. Assuredness about virtue is no recipe for public diplomacy.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/kevin_...way_of_war.html
INDIA CAN OFFER QUIET DIPLOMACY - JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA (ECONOMIC TIMES, INDIA, NOVEMBER 30): The real issue is not what India can, or rather could have contributed at the US-hosted Mid-East peace conference in Annapolis. It is what India might contribute now that the conference is over. First, we can offer quiet diplomacy to help in those tracks where change is possible, and that itself will be something of a balm for those suffering from too much public diplomacy, which is the case with all of West Asia.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articl...8,prtpage-1.cms
ANNAPOLIS, A CHANCE TO JOIN THE MIDEAST PEACE TRAIN - ENDY M. BAYUNI (JAKARTA POST, JAKARTA, NOVEMBER 30): If Indonesia is changing its Middle East policy in the wake of the country's participation in Annapolis, and is seeking a more active role in the peace process, then the government had better work on its public diplomacy on the home front as well.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadli....A05&irec=4
UKRAINE'S PUBLIC DIPLOMACY SAYS: WE ARE NOT RUSSIA ? (KIM ANDREW ELLIOT DISCUSSING INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY, NOVEMBER 29): "'Russia wants to re-establish itself as a world leader' whereas 'all Ukrainians want to be European.'"
http://www.kimandrewelliott.com/index.php?id=2832
US, OTHERS PLEDGE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): The United States, Britain and France publicly pledged Thursday to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of journalists in war zones. The three countries became the first signatories of the Geneva Convention to accept a new nonbinding accord on protecting correspondents in conflict, said the International Committee of the Red Cross, which oversees compliance with the 1949 treaty on the rules of war.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-R...agewanted=print
AMERICAN BRAIN DRAIN REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 30): Foreign students comprised 44% of science and engineering doctorates last year. Closing the door to foreign professionals puts US companies at a competitive disadvantage and pushes jobs out of the country.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196389637...ew_and_outlooks
THE ALGEBRA OF OCCUPATION - CONN HALLINAN (FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, NOVEMBER 27): ?Winning over the population,? continues to be the illusion of every occupier. Testifying before Congress, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, 'Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure, and promoting good government.' And then there is the real world.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4766
AL QAEDA'S EMERGING DEFEAT - AUSTIN BAY (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
REOPENING OF LOOTED MUSEUM SIGNALS A CALMER BAGHDAD - JON SWAIN (SUNDAY TIMES, NOVEMBER 25): Nearly five years after it was ransacked by hordes of looters in the wake of Saddam Hussein?s overthrow, the Iraq museum in Baghdad is about to open its doors again.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2937102.ece
IRAQI TV, THEN AND NOW: 'FRIENDS', 'DR. PHIL' AND SATELLITE DISHES TAKE PLACE OF ACTION FLICKS AND SADDAM (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 28)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196202137...s_editors_picks
IRAQ LACKS PLAN ON THE RETURN OF REFUGEES, MILITARY SAYS - MICHAEL R. GORDON AND STEPHEN FARRELL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 30)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/world/mi...agewanted=print
PROCESSING OF IRAQI REFUGEES IMPROVES, OFFICIALS SAY: STATE DEPARTMENT EXPECTS AS MANY AS 12,000 TO ARRIVE IN THE UNITED STATES NEXT YEAR - WALTER PINCUS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 30)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112902227.html
IRAQIS' QUALITY OF LIFE MARKED BY SLOW GAINS, MANY SETBACKS: WORRIES ABOUND THAT GOVERNMENT ISN'T UP TO TASK OF PROVIDING SERVICES - AMIT R. PALEY AND KAREN DEYOUNG (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 30)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112902472.html
QUIET BEFORE A NEW IRAQ STORM? IN THE FOX'S LAIR - WILLIAM S. LIND (COUNTERPUNCH, NOVEMBER 28): In past wars, quiet periods at the front have often preceded a "big push" by one side or both. Such may prove to be the case in Iraq as well, at least as far as Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army are concerned.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lind11272007.html
STILL NO WAY OUT - EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): Iraq's leaders are no closer to making the political deals that are the only hope for building a self-sustaining peace. Americans need to ask themselves the questions Mr. Bush is refusing to answer: Is this country signing on to keep the peace in Iraq indefinitely? If so, how many American and Iraqi deaths a month are an acceptable price? If not, what?s the plan for getting out?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/...agewanted=print
BUSH'S NEXT PREEMPTIVE STRIKE - HAROLD MEYERSON (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 29): On Monday, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a declaration pledging that their governments would put in place a long-term political and security pact sometime next year. What Bush will almost surely be pushing for is permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, enshrined in a pact he can sign a few months before he leaves office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112802050.html
BUSH ISN'T THE ONLY DECIDER: HE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO LOCK IN AN IRAQ TREATY WITHOUT CONGRESS' APPROVAL - BRUCE ACKERMAN (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 29): President Bush is again in legacy mode. His White House "czar" on Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, explained that the administration intends to reach a final agreement between the two countries by July 31, 2008. In describing the negotiations, he made a remarkable suggestion: Only the Iraqi parliament, not the US Congress, needs to formally approve the agreement.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
THERE'S REASON FOR HOPE IN IRAQ, BUT MANY HURDLES REMAIN TRUDY RUBIN (BALTIMORESUN.COM, NOVEMBER 27): Remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq wait in the wings. Radical Shiite militias retain their arms. The al-Maliki government is weak and inept. But the current security lull at least provides a base on which to build something sustainable before U.S. troops start to withdraw. This Iraqi opening deserves a chance.
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.rubin27nov27,0,2204334.story
WHERE TO FIND PROGRESS IN IRAQ: BAGHDAD SHOULDN'T BE THE COUNTRY'S ONLY BELLWETHER - JON P. DORSCHNER (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NOVEMBER 29): After years of violence, insurgency, and uprisings, the current window of relative peace may present an unprecedented opportunity to move ahead economically and politically. Provincial people and their governments appear determined to grab this opportunity and run with it, with or without the government in Baghdad. And that is a legitimate sign of progress for the country. (Jon P. Dorschner is a career foreign-service officer and the Iraq provincial affairs officer in the Italian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team in Dhi Qar Province. This piece was subject to State Department review.)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1129/p09s02-coop.htm
POSSIBLE DEMOCRAT CHOICE AS NEXT SECRETARY OF STATE SAYS PENTAGON IS FIERCELY OPPOSED TO STRIKE: HOLBROOKE SAYS BUSH WON'T ATTACK IRAN - JEFF BERG (COUNTERPUNCH, NOVEMBER 28)
http://www.counterpunch.org/berg11272007.html
U.S. WANTS TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ON IRANIAN NONINTERVENTION PACT - REESE ERLICH (BATIMORESUN.COM, NOVEMBER 28): President Bush and leading Democratic presidential candidates have said a military attack on Iran is a viable option. Yet the 1981 Algiers Accords, backed by Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, prohibit such an attack. SEE BELOW ITEM 50.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...661,print.story
AFTER ANNAPOLIS: NEGOTIATIONS TO COME AND A FUTURE STILL UNKNOWN EDWARD M. GOMEZ (WORLD VIEWS, SF GATE, NOVEMBER 28)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate...;entry_id=22292
IN MIDEAST PEACE PROCESS, HOW BIG A ROLE WILL BUSH PLAY? BUSH APPEARS TO BE PLAYING DOWN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE US IN THE PROCESS, BUT SOME EXPERTS SEE A NEED FOR AN ACTIVE OUTSIDE ARBITER - HOWARD LAFRANCHI (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NOVEMBER 29)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1129/p12s01-usfp.htm
BUSH'S NEXT STEP? WHO KNOWS? - DAN FROOMKIN (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, NOVEMBER 29): When it comes to achieving peace in the Middle East, President Bush seems to have no idea what to do next.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112901224.html
THE WHITE HOUSE 'AFTER PARTY' - DAN FROOMKIN (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, NOVEMBER 28): Bush's flirtation with Middle East summitry looks more like an attempt to humor his beloved secretary of state than it does a departure from his hands-off and ardently pro-Israeli posture of the past seven years. SEE ALSO BELOW ITEMS 54-57.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2801309_pf.html
AFGHAN COUNTERINSURGENCY BY THE BOOK - FAWZIA SHEIKH (ASIA TIMES, NOVEMBER 28): The Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Academy, a work in progress, aims to teach counterinsurgency practices to newly arrived Western trainers sent to embed with the Afghan security forces, as well as to coalition forces and to senior members of the Afghan military, police and intelligence services. The academy received US$1 million this year but is lobbying for an annual budget of $7-9 million to spend on paying instructors and for building infrastructure.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK29Df01.html SEE ALSO
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196383409...=hps_us_pageone
A 'SURGE' FOR AFGHANISTAN? A MARINE PROPOSAL UNDER DISCUSSION THIS WEEK WOULD REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ - GORDON LUBOLD (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NOVEMBER 29)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1129/p01s05-usmi.html
THE GENERAL STANDS ALONE EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): Pakistan's democratic opposition is embittered at the continued U.S. support for Mr. Musharraf, and will probably boycott the January elections.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
THE GENERAL RETIRES: BUT STILL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF CLINGS TO POWER, PROLONGING PAKISTAN'S CRISIS ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 29): If Pakistan's moderate center is to have a chance of defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Mr. Musharraf will have to retire from public life. The sooner he and Pakistan's army get that message from Washington, the quicker the current crisis can be ended.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112802114.html
IF YOU THOUGHT MUSARRAF WAS BAD . . .: FORMER PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTERS SHARIF AND BHUTTO ARE HARDLY THE RIGHT LEADERS TO NUTURE DEMOCRACY AND FIGHT TERRORISM - MANSOOR IJAZ (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 30): Given the players and the circumstances, the elections in January will resolve little. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
POLITICAL ISLAM AND EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY EFFWIT (SWEDISH MEATBALLS CONFIDENTIAL, NOVEMBER 29): The Centre for European Policy Studies released an important report yesterday dealing with the necessity for the E.U. (and by extension, the U.S.) to do a better job of engaging Islamic political parties in the Arab world. One conclusion is that the heavy lifting will likely have to be conducted through the Europeans, due to the toxicity of the U.S. brand in the opinion of the target audience.
http://swedemeat.blogspot.com/2007/11/poli...an-foreign.html
A PARTNER FOR DEALING WITH IRAN? THE LESSONS OF U.S.-CHINA COOPERATION ON PYONGYANG - ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 30): A comprehensive, strategic dialogue between the United States and China regarding the relevance of their shared experience dealing with North Korea to the potential crisis with Iran could be timely and historically expedient.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2901876_pf.html
SHUTTING UP VENEZUELA'S CHÁVEZ - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 29): Chávez's grab for socialist-emperor status is grotesque and dangerous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/opinion/...agewanted=print
AMERICA'S GULAG GOES BEFORE THE COURT - MARIE COCCO (TRUTHDIG, NOVEMBER 28): It has been more than three years since the Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo detainees indeed have a right to contest their confinement before a U.S. court, and that the circumstances under which they are held?without charge, without having seen the government?s evidence against them and without the ability to gather evidence of their own?violate the Constitution and various treaties the United States has signed. But that ruling in Rasul v. Bush didn?t prompt compliance. It touched off a round of cynical circumvention.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200711...fore_the_court/
GET SERIOUS [REVIEW OF CONTAINMENT: REBUILDING A STRATEGY AGAINST GLOBAL TERROR BY IAN SHAPIRO] - JAMES P. RUBIN (NEW REPUBLIC, NOVEMBER 29): If the know-one-thing opponents of the Iraq war such as Ian Shapiro get the upper hand in the campaign debate, and in history's first judgments, there is a real risk that the pendulum of American politics will overshoot the responsible mark, and post-Iraq wisdom will turn into post-Iraq folly.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...2d-70f3e723f113
REPORT: RICE COMPARES LIFE IN U.S. SOUTH TO PALESTINIANS' PLIGHT ?HAARETZ, NOVEMBER 28)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929499.html
RICE'S WAY: RESTRAINT IN QUEST FOR PEACE - HELENE COOPER (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 29): One thing is clear: the Rice approach to Middle East diplomacy is far more restrained than that of her predecessors, and it consists of pushing Israel -- as well as her boss, President Bush -- only so far, while putting off the big, hard fights until the end.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/washingt...agewanted=print
Key Sunni Parlaimentarian Accused of Terrorism; Son Detained
Bush-Maliki Agreement Defies US Laws, Iraqi Parliament
Maya Schenwar
Does Our Energy Future Hinge on Iran?
Kelpie Wilson
Australia's PM-Elect Says Troops Out of Iraq by Mid-2008
McCarthyism Comes to Iraq: Dententions of Those Accused of "Iran Connection" on the Rise
Ali Al-Fadhily
Bush-Maliki Agreement Defies US Laws, Iraqi Parliament
Maya Schenwar
Does Our Energy Future Hinge on Iran?
Kelpie Wilson
Australia's PM-Elect Says Troops Out of Iraq by Mid-2008
McCarthyism Comes to Iraq: Dententions of Those Accused of "Iran Connection" on the Rise
Ali Al-Fadhily
Afghanistan Now More Dangerous Than Iraq for US Troops
Putin Withdraws Russia From Major Arms Treaty
Why Annapolis Is About Iran
US Guesses Maybe Missing Pakistani Centrifuges Ended Up in Syria
Iraq's Numbers Don't Add Up, US Says
Iraqi Journalist Recants Claim That 11 Family Members Were Killed
Court: Canada Can't Turn Back American Asylum Seekers
Putin Withdraws Russia From Major Arms Treaty
Why Annapolis Is About Iran
US Guesses Maybe Missing Pakistani Centrifuges Ended Up in Syria
Iraq's Numbers Don't Add Up, US Says
Iraqi Journalist Recants Claim That 11 Family Members Were Killed
Court: Canada Can't Turn Back American Asylum Seekers
The Looking Glass War in Iraq – Victor Davis Hanson, National Review
Sovereign Impunity – Wall Street Journal editorial
The Africanization of the Balkans – Denis Boyles, National Review
After Annapolis – Ariel Cohen, Washington Times
Will Peace Cost Me My Home? - Ghada Ageel, Los Angeles Times
The Price of Annapolis – Lee Smith, Weekly Standard
Saying No to Chavez? – New York Times editorial
Why I Parted Ways with Chavez? – Raul Isaias Baduel, New York Times
Putting Chavez to a Vote? – Jaime Daremblum, National Review
Sowing Chaos in Latin America - Carlos Sabino, Washington Times
Hugo Choice – Gustavo Coronel, National Review
The Powers of Putin – London Daily Telegraph editorial
A Vote that Putin Fears – Marsha Lipman, Washington Post
An Improvement on Democracy – Peter Watson, London Times
Sovereign Impunity – Wall Street Journal editorial
The Africanization of the Balkans – Denis Boyles, National Review
After Annapolis – Ariel Cohen, Washington Times
Will Peace Cost Me My Home? - Ghada Ageel, Los Angeles Times
The Price of Annapolis – Lee Smith, Weekly Standard
Saying No to Chavez? – New York Times editorial
Why I Parted Ways with Chavez? – Raul Isaias Baduel, New York Times
Putting Chavez to a Vote? – Jaime Daremblum, National Review
Sowing Chaos in Latin America - Carlos Sabino, Washington Times
Hugo Choice – Gustavo Coronel, National Review
The Powers of Putin – London Daily Telegraph editorial
A Vote that Putin Fears – Marsha Lipman, Washington Post
An Improvement on Democracy – Peter Watson, London Times
Saudi Whiplash – Washington Post editorial
The Road from Annapolis – David Ignatius, Washington Post
Middle East Peace through Anxiety? – Michael Oren, New York Times
Trying to Change the Status Quo – David Horovitz, Jerusalem Post
Losing Ground to Syria - Rami Khouri, Daily Star
Peace Process Fine Print - Oliver North, Washington Times
Partition at 60 – Jerusalem Post editorial
The Problem with Palestinian Aid - Mohammed Samhouri, Daily Star
Apartheid, Not Peace – Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Pakistan’s Slow-Moving Emergency? – Ali Sethi, New York Times
Pakistan's Dr. Doom - Frantz and Collins, Los Angeles Times
Recruiting: Army Asking for Problems – Las Vegas Sun editorial
A Failure to Confront Radical Islam - Shiraz Maher, London Times
Political Islam - Jemima Khan, London Daily Telegraph
Trans-Atlantic Divide on Muslim Integration – Marcia Pally, Daily Star
Osama's Echo Chamber - Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times
Warning Tremors in France – Boston Globe editorial
Sarkozy’s Hard Bargain – Jim Hoagland, Washington Post
Chavez's Electoral Coup - Wall Street Journal editorial
Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez – Donald Rumsfeld, Washington Post
Venezuela's Public Enemy No.1 - Sergio Munoz, Los Angeles Times
5 Myths about the Bomb and Us – Jeffrey Lewis, Washington Post
The KGB's Mole Master - David Wise, Los Angeles Times
The Road from Annapolis – David Ignatius, Washington Post
Middle East Peace through Anxiety? – Michael Oren, New York Times
Trying to Change the Status Quo – David Horovitz, Jerusalem Post
Losing Ground to Syria - Rami Khouri, Daily Star
Peace Process Fine Print - Oliver North, Washington Times
Partition at 60 – Jerusalem Post editorial
The Problem with Palestinian Aid - Mohammed Samhouri, Daily Star
Apartheid, Not Peace – Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Pakistan’s Slow-Moving Emergency? – Ali Sethi, New York Times
Pakistan's Dr. Doom - Frantz and Collins, Los Angeles Times
Recruiting: Army Asking for Problems – Las Vegas Sun editorial
A Failure to Confront Radical Islam - Shiraz Maher, London Times
Political Islam - Jemima Khan, London Daily Telegraph
Trans-Atlantic Divide on Muslim Integration – Marcia Pally, Daily Star
Osama's Echo Chamber - Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times
Warning Tremors in France – Boston Globe editorial
Sarkozy’s Hard Bargain – Jim Hoagland, Washington Post
Chavez's Electoral Coup - Wall Street Journal editorial
Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez – Donald Rumsfeld, Washington Post
Venezuela's Public Enemy No.1 - Sergio Munoz, Los Angeles Times
5 Myths about the Bomb and Us – Jeffrey Lewis, Washington Post
The KGB's Mole Master - David Wise, Los Angeles Times
Why Annapolis Is About Iran
by Khody Akhavi It was initially billed as a "peace conference" to decisively address the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But as President George W. Bush's ambitious Annapolis gathering approached – his most intensive effort to restart peace talks in seven years – any prospect of a comprehensive breakthrough appeared as distant as ever, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggled to agree on a joint statement until the last minute.
Annapolis only lasted about 24 hours – not nearly enough time to untangle the fears and distrust that have exacerbated the longest running protracted refugee crisis in the Middle East. But nearly one week later, it appears that the meeting, attended by 40 countries, including 16 member states of the Arab League, served a more crucial purpose – to convince Israel and Arab regimes that they face their most dangerous threat from the ascendance of Iran and its brand of Islamic radicalism.
"The battle is underway for the future of the Middle East, and we must not cede victory to the extremists," said President Bush during the conference, offering an ominous view of the region that remains consistent with his dualistic view of "good" vs. "evil."
"With their violent actions and contempt for human life, the extremists are seeking to impose a dark vision on the Palestinian people, a vision that feeds on hopelessness and despair to sow chaos in the Holy Land. If this vision prevails, the future of the region will be endless terror, endless war and endless suffering," he said.
President Bush's desire to frame Annapolis as an anti-terrorism conference at the expense of seemingly laudable goals of peace may sour many in the region, but the attendance of so many Arab states – notably Iran's ally Syria – suggests that since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the strategic calculus of the region has irrevocably shifted. And that has many authoritarian regimes in the region worried that a nuclear Iran will assume the role of Gulf hegemon and pose a challenge to their security.
"[Iranian hegemony] became deeply threatening to the Sunni Arab states, and they, and Israel, suddenly found that they were on the same side against the Iranians," said Martin Indyk, a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton, in an interview with National Public Radio the day of the conference.
"That created the strategic opportunity which the administration has finally come to recognize, and that's more than anything else what's fueling the move to Annapolis."
Indyk worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and served as the founding executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Washington believes that by isolating Iran, it can stabilize the region, but Iran's exclusion from the Middle East's political order has reinforced Tehran's willingness to play a "spoiler role" in broader US-led initiatives in the Gulf and beyond. Washington's diplomatic track has remained largely ineffective because the White House always viewed Iran through the prism of a successful campaign in Iraq, but it never accounted for possible failure, and the regional consequences.
Four years after the "liberation" of Baghdad, the Iraq quagmire has marred the White House's idealistic vision for a "new" Middle East, and Iran has become the main beneficiary of Washington's foreign policy nightmare. While the White House wall of hubris has cracked, the administration remains hawkish on Tehran, offering highly conditional talks over its nuclear program, and pushing for UN Security Council sanctions while pursuing its own unilateral sanctions against key elements of Iran's security apparatus, namely the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The US only appears willing to deal with the Iranian regime at an incremental pace on issues of immediate US concern, such as the security of Iraq.
US-Iranian antipathy dates back to Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which deposed US-backed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and brought the charismatic and reactionary Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power. While it is clear that US security imperatives shifted after the fall of the Shah, the ascent of the Islamic Republic in 1979 did not exactly change the broader security interests of two regional actors: Iran and Israel. Iran needed Israel to offset the threat it felt from its Arab neighbors, namely Iraq, as well as the looming threat of Soviet influence in the region.
From Israel's perspective, Iran balanced Iraq, and Tel Aviv viewed Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime as its more immediate threat. Through this prism, Israel continued to view Iran – in spite of Khomeini's vitriolic rhetoric against the "Zionist entity" – as its periphery ally with mutual interests: to check Iraq. Baghdad has been naturalized since the 1991 Gulf War, worn down by US led sanctions, but the 2003 invasion and its aftermath allowed Tehran to increase its influence over its erstwhile foe.
As much as the Bush White House paints Tehran as an unapologetic and ideological nemesis – the very architects of "Islamic terrorism" – Tehran has made overtures to the US in hopes of laying the foundations for normalization. They condemned the 9/11 attacks, pledged to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and, during their weakest and Washington's strongest moment – in the first days of the Iraq invasion – Iran signaled it was willing to put its nuclear program and support of Islamist rejectionist groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad) on the negotiating table in hopes of being placed on the list of Washington vanquished foes: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
"The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the US," said Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the Washington-based New America Foundation, in a statement to the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs earlier this month.
The hope was that by engaging Iran over Afghanistan, the US could later convince Iran to give up its military support of rejectionist groups that threatened Israel. Any possible cooperation was scuttled by White House neoconservatives, who were unwilling to make any move towards engaging Iran.
The US strategy towards Syria also appears to have shifted in an attempt to break Damascus's alliance with Iran. Syria was the only Arab country to support Iran through its Islamic Revolution and its war against Iraq, but many analysts say the alliance between both countries is more out of necessity, and has little to do with ideological commitments.
Syria defended its attendance at the conference, saying it is open to any serious attempt to reach a peace deal with Israel that brings the return of the Golan Heights. Syria's deputy foreign minister, Faysal Mekdad, told the conference Tuesday his country was "sincere in our pursuit of a just and comprehensive peace."
The Bush administration publicly chided House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus more than a year ago, but the Annapolis conference signals Washington's new willingness to compromise with Syria, especially over the Lebanese presidential deadlock, the nation's largest political crisis since the Lebanese Civil War.
Washington's political allies agreed this week to end their opposition to the presidential bid of a candidate viewed as a Syrian favorite, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
"Ultimately, the US can get more out of Assad in exchange for the Golan than it can by isolating him," wrote Mohamad Bazzi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor.
"If there are serious negotiations, Washington can demand that Assad stop interfering in Lebanon and Iraq, carry out domestic reforms, and drop Syrian support for Hamas and other Palestinian groups that reject peace with Israel."
It remains to be seen how much the US can benefit from isolating Iran from the broader future of the region.
(Inter Press Service)
by Khody Akhavi It was initially billed as a "peace conference" to decisively address the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But as President George W. Bush's ambitious Annapolis gathering approached – his most intensive effort to restart peace talks in seven years – any prospect of a comprehensive breakthrough appeared as distant as ever, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggled to agree on a joint statement until the last minute.
Annapolis only lasted about 24 hours – not nearly enough time to untangle the fears and distrust that have exacerbated the longest running protracted refugee crisis in the Middle East. But nearly one week later, it appears that the meeting, attended by 40 countries, including 16 member states of the Arab League, served a more crucial purpose – to convince Israel and Arab regimes that they face their most dangerous threat from the ascendance of Iran and its brand of Islamic radicalism.
"The battle is underway for the future of the Middle East, and we must not cede victory to the extremists," said President Bush during the conference, offering an ominous view of the region that remains consistent with his dualistic view of "good" vs. "evil."
"With their violent actions and contempt for human life, the extremists are seeking to impose a dark vision on the Palestinian people, a vision that feeds on hopelessness and despair to sow chaos in the Holy Land. If this vision prevails, the future of the region will be endless terror, endless war and endless suffering," he said.
President Bush's desire to frame Annapolis as an anti-terrorism conference at the expense of seemingly laudable goals of peace may sour many in the region, but the attendance of so many Arab states – notably Iran's ally Syria – suggests that since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the strategic calculus of the region has irrevocably shifted. And that has many authoritarian regimes in the region worried that a nuclear Iran will assume the role of Gulf hegemon and pose a challenge to their security.
"[Iranian hegemony] became deeply threatening to the Sunni Arab states, and they, and Israel, suddenly found that they were on the same side against the Iranians," said Martin Indyk, a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton, in an interview with National Public Radio the day of the conference.
"That created the strategic opportunity which the administration has finally come to recognize, and that's more than anything else what's fueling the move to Annapolis."
Indyk worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and served as the founding executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Washington believes that by isolating Iran, it can stabilize the region, but Iran's exclusion from the Middle East's political order has reinforced Tehran's willingness to play a "spoiler role" in broader US-led initiatives in the Gulf and beyond. Washington's diplomatic track has remained largely ineffective because the White House always viewed Iran through the prism of a successful campaign in Iraq, but it never accounted for possible failure, and the regional consequences.
Four years after the "liberation" of Baghdad, the Iraq quagmire has marred the White House's idealistic vision for a "new" Middle East, and Iran has become the main beneficiary of Washington's foreign policy nightmare. While the White House wall of hubris has cracked, the administration remains hawkish on Tehran, offering highly conditional talks over its nuclear program, and pushing for UN Security Council sanctions while pursuing its own unilateral sanctions against key elements of Iran's security apparatus, namely the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The US only appears willing to deal with the Iranian regime at an incremental pace on issues of immediate US concern, such as the security of Iraq.
US-Iranian antipathy dates back to Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which deposed US-backed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and brought the charismatic and reactionary Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power. While it is clear that US security imperatives shifted after the fall of the Shah, the ascent of the Islamic Republic in 1979 did not exactly change the broader security interests of two regional actors: Iran and Israel. Iran needed Israel to offset the threat it felt from its Arab neighbors, namely Iraq, as well as the looming threat of Soviet influence in the region.
From Israel's perspective, Iran balanced Iraq, and Tel Aviv viewed Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime as its more immediate threat. Through this prism, Israel continued to view Iran – in spite of Khomeini's vitriolic rhetoric against the "Zionist entity" – as its periphery ally with mutual interests: to check Iraq. Baghdad has been naturalized since the 1991 Gulf War, worn down by US led sanctions, but the 2003 invasion and its aftermath allowed Tehran to increase its influence over its erstwhile foe.
As much as the Bush White House paints Tehran as an unapologetic and ideological nemesis – the very architects of "Islamic terrorism" – Tehran has made overtures to the US in hopes of laying the foundations for normalization. They condemned the 9/11 attacks, pledged to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and, during their weakest and Washington's strongest moment – in the first days of the Iraq invasion – Iran signaled it was willing to put its nuclear program and support of Islamist rejectionist groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad) on the negotiating table in hopes of being placed on the list of Washington vanquished foes: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
"The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the US," said Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the Washington-based New America Foundation, in a statement to the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs earlier this month.
The hope was that by engaging Iran over Afghanistan, the US could later convince Iran to give up its military support of rejectionist groups that threatened Israel. Any possible cooperation was scuttled by White House neoconservatives, who were unwilling to make any move towards engaging Iran.
The US strategy towards Syria also appears to have shifted in an attempt to break Damascus's alliance with Iran. Syria was the only Arab country to support Iran through its Islamic Revolution and its war against Iraq, but many analysts say the alliance between both countries is more out of necessity, and has little to do with ideological commitments.
Syria defended its attendance at the conference, saying it is open to any serious attempt to reach a peace deal with Israel that brings the return of the Golan Heights. Syria's deputy foreign minister, Faysal Mekdad, told the conference Tuesday his country was "sincere in our pursuit of a just and comprehensive peace."
The Bush administration publicly chided House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus more than a year ago, but the Annapolis conference signals Washington's new willingness to compromise with Syria, especially over the Lebanese presidential deadlock, the nation's largest political crisis since the Lebanese Civil War.
Washington's political allies agreed this week to end their opposition to the presidential bid of a candidate viewed as a Syrian favorite, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
"Ultimately, the US can get more out of Assad in exchange for the Golan than it can by isolating him," wrote Mohamad Bazzi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor.
"If there are serious negotiations, Washington can demand that Assad stop interfering in Lebanon and Iraq, carry out domestic reforms, and drop Syrian support for Hamas and other Palestinian groups that reject peace with Israel."
It remains to be seen how much the US can benefit from isolating Iran from the broader future of the region.
(Inter Press Service)
Gates: The ‘Anti-Rumsfeld’ – Ephron, Hirsh & Thomas, Newsweek
Military Alone Can't Defend U.S. Interests - Miami Herald editorial
What I See Every Day in Iraq – Michael Totten, New York Daily News
Iraq: A Non-Story Remakes the Race – Peter Beinart, Washington Post
Rigging Pakistan’s Election? – Robert Novak, Washington Post
Fuses in Gaza – Jackson Diehl, Washington Post
The Perilous Path to Peace - Mort Zuckerman, New York Daily News
How UNRWA Creates Dependency - Romirowsky and Spyer, Washington Times
For Mideast Peace, Think Bigger - Helena Cobban, Christian Science Monitor
U.N. 'Compromise' on Darfur Rapes – Nat Hentoff, Washington Times
The Limits of 21st-Century Revolution? – Roger Cohen, New York Times
Sudan: The ‘Big Offense’ – Mark Steyn, National Review
Sudan: Facing Down a Bullying Mob - David Warren, Real
Military Alone Can't Defend U.S. Interests - Miami Herald editorial
What I See Every Day in Iraq – Michael Totten, New York Daily News
Iraq: A Non-Story Remakes the Race – Peter Beinart, Washington Post
Rigging Pakistan’s Election? – Robert Novak, Washington Post
Fuses in Gaza – Jackson Diehl, Washington Post
The Perilous Path to Peace - Mort Zuckerman, New York Daily News
How UNRWA Creates Dependency - Romirowsky and Spyer, Washington Times
For Mideast Peace, Think Bigger - Helena Cobban, Christian Science Monitor
U.N. 'Compromise' on Darfur Rapes – Nat Hentoff, Washington Times
The Limits of 21st-Century Revolution? – Roger Cohen, New York Times
Sudan: The ‘Big Offense’ – Mark Steyn, National Review
Sudan: Facing Down a Bullying Mob - David Warren, Real