Winning in Iraq?

In the Ghetto

Many claims have been made recently relating to our "success" in Iraq. Proponents of these claim, such as John McCain, President Bush, and virtually every annoying conservative talking head, say that the surge has worked, violence is down, and PM Nouri al Maliki is becoming a strong leader and is pushing through political reform in the war-torn country. They also use these reasons as reasons for the United States to continue its occupation of Iraq.

I'm not going to refute these facts. Violence is down, and this downturn indeed came about the same time as we tossed more troops at Iraq. Also, there is less sectarian violence which, to the naked eye, is proof of reconciliation between the hostile factions. This simple article is just meant to point out some of the inaccuracies and deceptions in their argument and try to nudge them back on the right track.

There is no doubt that the surge has brought about a period of relative calm and peace with Iraqi characteristics. But this is a little fallacious. First of all, it's pretty simple to see why the surge "worked." Let's say you have a fire that is getting out of control. So, to combat it, you grab a small water gun that you may have played with at a younger age. As you're squirting water at the fire, you realize it isn't doing anything, and maybe instead of doing it on your own, you should have called the firefighters. But, being the maverick you are, you decide to continue to go it alone and use a fire extinguisher instead of a squirt gun (the extinguisher, by the way, was previously fighting another fire a little east of the new fire). Obviously, this will contain the fire far more effectively than the squirt gun. This is essentially what we did in Iraq. There was rising violence in Iraq and we decided to bolster our troop levels with additional brigades. Only an idiot would think this wouldn't bring violence down. Here's another reason to which nobody seems to being paying attention. Sectarian violence is also going down, so naturally it's due to Mr. McCain's maverick decision to send additional brigades, right? Wrong. Right now, there is essentially a seperator between the warring faction, Sunnis and Shias being put in ghettos (hence the title). As opposed to aiding reconciliation, the surge has actually given Iraq just enough time to be sent back to the post Civil War era US. Instead of growing up as a nation and dealing with its problems, Iraq has said "You go over there, and you go over there. And, if any of you cross this line, NO OIL FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!"

I would like to add one thing, unfortunately, I can't promise any Seinfeld references. America's little dabble in nation building has been, well, just awful. Plus, when we were on the verge of winning it in Afghanistan, our President decided to send troops to Iraq, a country with nothing to do with the War on Terror. Now, Afghanistan is circling the drain and McCain and Bush are busy showing off the new and segregated Iraq. The Iraqi army is now capable of taking over, so what say we hand them a present from us, it's called "Their Country." With all our troops freed up, let's help out Afghanistan instead of occupying Iraq.


Also, my apologies for the title. I couldn't resist.

Prisoner Swap in Israel; and Biofuel Reduction Urged

Israel/Lebanon Swap Prisoners

"In the presence of a UN representative," the government of Israel and the Islamic movement of Hezbollah signed an agreement under which Hezbollah would give up two soldiers it captured during the 2006 conflict, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser who are believed to be dead by the Israeli government, in exchange for five Lebanese prisoners. Among the prisoners being handed over to Hezbollah is Samir Qantar, who was imprisoned in 1979 for his actions during a raid. He is believed to be involved in the murder of three Israelis (including a policeman and a child). Also, Israel is exhuming the bodies of fighters who were slain during the numerous years of conflict between the two battling sides. The leader of Hezbollah added he would "provide information on missing Israeli airman Ron Arad."

So, what does this mean on lasting peace between the two belligerent camps. Hopefully, this may lead to an easing of the tensions, a theoretical détente, on Israel's northern border. There are many complications to a possible peace between Israel and Hezbollah. First of all, it's kind of hard to just give up the fight to which you have dedicated your life. That's a given. A more concrete reason would be Hezbollah's ties to various other radical groups who are always working hard to fight against Israel. United by their hatred of Israel, Hezbollah, a radical Shia organization, has provided military training and financial support to Hamas, the radical Sunni group fighting Israel in the Gaza Strip. Currently, Hamas holds an Israeli prisoner of its own, soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, and, despite the recent ceasefire, Israel and the militant group continue to exchange acts of violence. Finally, Iran, a country which has incessantly opposed Israel and also very Shia, and Hezbollah are, to put it lightly, good friends. If Israel can somehow establish a peace deal, hardlinersin Israel might believe it's lending credence to a peace deal with Iran.

There are many occlusions to a peace deal with Hezbollah. However, for the sake of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the entire Middle East, we can only hope that they can form some kind of peace deal. Unfortunately, this a very, very unlikely scenario.

Biofuels Barred?

The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, discouraged rich countries from growing crops, that could be used as food, for fuel. Speaking at the G8 summit in Japan, Mr. Zoellick berated the US and EU for using corn and rapeseed for fuel. The Secretart General of the UN Ban Ki Moon has also blamed biofuel production for the food shortage.

While the EU and Japan also bear responsibility for this crisis, seeing as how I live in the US, I'm going to focus on the hypocrisies of the US policy on trade and hunger. The United States claims to be the greatest nation of the world, the world's policeman, and various other trite, arrogant labels made by, quite frankly, trite arrogant people for, most likely, the only country to which they have ever been. However, isn't it true that, as the world's policeman, shouldn't we not only be fighting the "evil-do-ers" of the world, but be aiding the citizens of the countries where we are fighting these bad people. Instead, we are fighting the interests of the poor people abroad and bickering over the patriotism of various presidential candidates.

The economy is tough right now, and this downturn is mostly caused by the price of oil. As a result, many are looking toward different renewable resources for our energy crisis. Unfortunately, we are making two mistakes. The first has to do with these "renewable resources" to which we're attempting to turn. Instead of investigating reasonable solutions like nuclear plants, wind and solar energy, and batteries with longer lives, we're taking crops, which could be used to feed the world, and turning them into fuel. This is taking food off the tables of millions of people and putting it into our cars. The second mistake is with our trade policy. As a country, we purport to be supportive of not only free trade, but of the plight of millions of poor farmers and workers around the developing world. However, as we continue to support agricultural subsidies, we are doing neither. Subsidies go against everything for which free trade stands. Also, with cheap US imports, poor farmers in the developing world and their slightly more expensive crops are plunging further into poverty. Until the US changes its policy, nothing good will happen to these poor people.

Betancourt Back; The Impotence of the AU; and My Take on Obama's Veepstakes

Betancourt Returns

After more than six years of captivity by the leftist rebel group FARC, former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt has been rescued by Colombian authorities. Along with fourteen others, including three American defense contractors, Betancourt was released and is in reportedly "very poor health." Her release was a cardinal point of French foreign policy.

While it may sound in bad taste, this is a major blow to FARC and its attempts to get their jailed guerillas released. In order to gain leverage in negotiations, FARC has used Betancourt as a bargaining chip. However, now, not only have they lost that leverage, this allows Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to continue his military offensive against the group. Betancourt's captivity had put pressure on Mr. Uribe to negotiate with FARC, something he has resisted in the past.

This setback adds to the many FARC has faced recently. Among other things, FARC has lost its longtime leader, Manuel Marulanda, along with two other members of its seven man ruling body. That said, the group still holds more than forty hostages and continues to ravage the country.

AU Apathy

We all know of the death and destruction spread by the militias supporting Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF. Mr. Mugabe has been defiant of international calls for him to either hold free and fair elections, form a coalition government with his opponet Morgan Tsvangirai, or just step down. Today, leaders of Africa met for an AU summit, giving them a chance to chastise Mr. Mugabe and dragoon him into doing one of the aforementioned actions. With this opportunity, these prominent African leaders...

BLEW IT! Yes, in the first window to pressure Mugabe, there he was, sitting in the chair for Zimbabwe. Despite the rise of the AU as a legitimate union of a continent rising out of the muddle of its past, it has shown ineffectiveness when dealing with Zimbabwe, feebly bowing to Robert Mugabe. In the resolution that was approved by the AU, it weakly called for a unity government, failed to call the elections illegitimate, and lionized the "efforts" of Thabo Mbeki to break a deal. However, Mr. Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy" has been largely fruitless and he has shown a stubborn relectance to issue even the mildest criticism to his neighbor, Mr. Mugabe.

The future of Zimbabwe is continuing to worsen. The rightful winner of the first round, Mr. Tsvangirai, is now hiding at the Dutch Embassy, his life in danger. He is, rightfully, denying any attempt at a unity government until he is declared the winner of the presidential campaign. As shown by the AU, international leaders are unable or unwilling to intervene or even condemn the actions of Mugabe. So now, Zimbabwe's hopes rest on the actions of the west. However, any action would definitely require UN approval, and China and Russia are going to veto any sanctions. Also, military intervention, even with UN approval, is very unpopular. The outcome of any military action could be devastating for Zimbabwe. Until action is taken, the people of Zimbabwe will continue to languish under hyperinflation and Mugabe's oppressive regime. Even more tragically, anyone who attempts to flee the situation faces vehement xenophobia in their new location, especially in South Africa.

Veepstakes

If past trends hold true in this election, Barack Obama will choose his running mate in the very near future. In 2004, John Kerry chose John Edwards on July 6th. In 1992, Bill Clinton chose his ultimately more successful running mate, Al Gore, on July 9th. So, the question is, who will be Obama's number two. I've narrowed my guesses down to five people: Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, retired General Wesley Clark, former Senaor Sam Nunn, and, my longshot pick, former House Majority and Minority leader Dick Gephart.

Bill Richardson
A perfect candidate on paper. He is a latino, he has loads of foreign policy experience (he has negotiated with numerous world leaders and dictators), he was an Ambassador to the UN, he was Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton, he is a popular governor of a swing state, and he is a pro-gun, pro-penalty western moderate. However, there are some downsides. His tenure as Secretary of Energy was plagued by the Wen Ho Lee scandal which might take away some of his credibility on energy and national security issues. His support of medical marijuana might hurt the Obama campaign among moderates. Finally, two minorities on the same ticket may cause even more trouble with working class whites.

Joe Biden
Mr. Biden's VP prospects have been somewhat dismissed by the media while he could be a superb number two. He is a Catholic, which is a demographic that Obama has had trouble with in the past. His longtime membership with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would help Obama with his biggest problem, his lack of experience. Biden took a prominent role in the Balkans conflict and influenced then President Bill Clinton's policy toward the region. However, he adamantly supported Bush's policy with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq, although he repeatedly called for more troops in Afghanistan. Fortunately, he has reversed his position on Iraq and now advocates a draw down of US troops. Another problem for the Senator is his geographic location. Despite Delaware's longstanding affinity for conservatism, I doubt he will help expand the electoral map.

Wesley Clark
There is no doubt what General Clark will bring to the ticket. He has actually commanded troops, going over John McCain's head. He was a supporter of Hillary Clinton and might help in party unity, bring over some of Mrs. Clinton's former supporters who are hesitant to support the "in-experienced" Obama. One downside of his candidacy are his remarks regarding the military experience and qualification of John McCain which received criticism from both McCain and Obama.

Sam Nunn
One of my favorites, Sam Nunn has many years of experience. He served in the Senate for 25 years and as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee for eight years. He is a moderate Democrat who has broken from his party on social and economic issues. This could help Obama reach out to disaffected Republicans and Reagan Democrats. Finally, he is from Georgia, a state that has been put in play by Barack Obama. However, his moderate to conservative positions could put him and Obama at odds with the Democratic party base.

Dick Gephart
The former majority leader of the House, Mr. Gephart is very popular with the labor movement. This characteristic could help with Reagan Democrat, union members who have shown reluctance to support his candidacy. However, he isn't a very popular choice for VP, and, as I said before, he isn't a very likely choice.


I would like to respond to a comment on my last post by "lp." I agree with your thoughts, this PUMA phenomenon isn't very significance and will lose much of its prevalence in the coming weeks as they go through the five stages of grief and inevitably reach acceptance. I also agree with your belief that it is a media created event. It is just another example of the media seeing a "shiny object" and making a big deal out of it.

Thanks for your comment, please keep reading.