The Republic of Dissent

More on Gitmo

Ken Silverstein has a great report in Harper's Magazine on Guantanamo which tells us about this prison and which shows that its existence stains not only America's image, but also contradicts its jurisprudence. What makes Guantanamo unAmerican is not really the fact that the world is pointing to it to show America's contradictions and what it believes to be its hypocrisy, it is rather the fact it makes security the most important American value when History shows that what makes America great is precisely the fact that it has always placed greater and less self-interested values such as freedom at the center of its society. Guantanamo may make America safer, but it is also making America less American.

The Supreme Court and Gitmo

The Supreme Court just decided in 5-3 ruling ( Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented. Chief Justice Roberts recused himself) that the military tribunals created by the Bush administrations to deal with some of the detainees of Guantanamo violated military law and the international law. The case was the case of "Osama Bin Laden driver"  Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose lawyers were arguing that he had the right to be tried by a civil court or by a court martial. This ruling by the Supreme court is going to have huge implications and it will force the Bush Administration to take of other means to deal with the Gitmo detainees and it probably leads to more lawsuits concerning other issues concerning the war powers of the president.

The Flag burning Amendment fails and it is a good thing

The Flag-burning amendment was defeated yesterday, by a single vote. I am happy that this amendment was defeated because it was based on misconception of patriotism and more importantly, because it would have meant an unnecessary limitation of free speech and a trivilation of the US constitution. However, I am alarmed  by the fact that so many Senators voted for this amendment. What separates me from the people who believe that flag burning ought to be a crime is my profound and sincere conviction that America is more than its flag and that what its flag represents is too powerful to be desecrated. America isn't a shallow country or a paper tiger without values. It is a country, which has given so much to the world and to humanity that even when people choose to burn its flag to express some kind of disgust for its policy or for what it stands, America is able to withstand this affront because its foundations and its values are too noble  and too strong to be stained by pettiness and provocative means of expression.

Freedom and Security: Four quick points on the "New York Times affair"

The critical issue, which the New York Times affair (the decision of the Times to publish a story about the monitoring of international money transfer by the US) poses is whether the Freedom of the press and of Americans is the same during times of crisis as it is in less perilous times. I believe that the press and the American people should be as free during dangerous and peaceful times for four reasons.

1. The power of the president has grown since 9/11 because many have argued that during times of crisis, the executive should have an enormous amount of power in order to protect the country and to insure the security of the American people. If the president is going to argue that he needs more power to protect America, then I believe that there should be more safeguards to ensure that power isn't misused. I believe that the press needs to play a watchdog role and inform the people because when one branch of government is asserting that it should be stronger than the others then at the least the people have to know what it is doing because power and secrecy are a lethal combination for a democracy. The New York Times had not only the right, but also the responsibility to write about the banking program after it determined that it wasn't damaging the national interest of the country and that it was in the interest of the people to know what is being done to protect.
2. The administration undermined its own case about the sensitivity of this information by leaking to the Wall Street Journal and to other newspapers to avoid that the New York Times be the first in publishing the story. In other times, the Bush administration cannot argue that the New York Times was irresponsible for publishing the story and then give the same information to other newspapers. I am wondering if the fact that the Bush administration leaked it to others doesn't show that this affair isn't about so much national security as it is about control. It isn't treasonous to publish a story, which simply reveals something that the administration doesn't want the public to know without damaging national security. It is hard for democracies to fight wars because they have to do so in ways which do not restrict the freedom of their citizens and which do not betray their own ideals. Does the US want to win the fight against terrorism any other way than in the democratic way, which unable it to remain itself without becoming something that it isn't in the name of security?
3. I think that if the Bush administration felt that publishing the story would damage national security, he could threaten the New York Times with legal action and for what I know so far, it didn't. The Bush administration has never been reluctant to play hardball with the press and I believe that if it believe that the publication of information about the fight against terrorism would have had serious consequence, it would have waited a couple of days to show its outrage and would have on the contrary done anything in its power to stop the Times by for example requesting an order by a judge that would have force the Times to stop. It is unlikely that such an act would have worked but it would have shown that the administration was sincere in its belief that the New York Times was acting irresponsibly and illegally.
4. Democracy is the best form of government because of the freedom that gives the people at all times.  Either a country is a democracy or it isn't. During times of crisis, more so in my opinion, people should be able to enjoy the same freedom unless they make on their own the choice to limit it. The point is a simple one and it is that because the United States is a democracy, each citizen has to make the choice in every situation whether there is something greater than her/his freedom and that for that reason, it would be irresponsible to do something that is permissible, but dangerous. Security isn't the highest goal in a democracy. It isn't even a value. Freedom is and as President Bush likes to say when he talks about Freedom, it is the greatest thing about a democracy and it is worth dying for so the argument that freedom, that democratic values should be sacrificed for security is not only undemocratic and unAmerican. The New York Times had the right to publish the banking story and moreover, I believe that it had the obligation to publish it once it made the decision that the information that it was providing wasn't going to threaten national security, but was going rather to contribute to the current debate about the ways to fight terrorism domestically and internationally.

Immigration and the economics of class

I admit that I have underestimated how many middle-class and lower-class Americans feel that illegal immigrants are undermining their way of life and are lowering their social status by offering cheaper labor. The New York Times has an excellent accident which is focusing on Long Island and on the immigration debate that is happening in that town. It talks about a man, Patrick Nicolosi who feels that illegal immigrants are hurting him and other hard working Americans by getting advantages such as free schooling without paying taxes and without having earned them:

It is the economics of class, not the politics of culture or race, that fires Mr. Nicolosi's resentment about what he sees in Elmont, which is probably as diverse a suburb as exists in the United States. Like many working-class Americans who live close to illegal immigrants, he worries that they are yet another force undermining the way of life and the social contract that generations of workers strived so hard to achieve.

I thought that it was only people such as Lou Dobbs who saw immigration as a solely a cultural and identity issue who were obsessing about immigration. Mr. Nicolosi shows that for many Americans, immigration is about class and economics. However, he also shows how easy it is to blame others for the ills of the working class. It isn't immigration which is making the life of hard working Americans more difficult, it is the fact that politicians refuse to focus to implement the policies that would enable them to have a higher standard of living. Last week, the Senate killed a bid to raise the minimum wage and this move showed that it is easier to focus on immigration which polarizes the debate and divides Americans by placing the blame for the problems of America on the shoulders of people who can't respond and can't fight.

While we were sleeping: Somalia, Islamism and Terrorism

Somalia is on the verge of becoming a "dangerous" country in the sense that Islamists and people with an history of violence are taking power. Somalia is closer to becoming what Afghanistan was before the end of 2001, a place where Islamists and people who have a beef with the United States can find refuge. The important question is this: By focusing exclusively on Iraq, is the US allowing other countries to radicalise and islamize and will Somalia be more dangerous than Iraq two years from now?  Terrorists always profit from chaos and lawlessness, but they flourish in places where the power in place share their ideals and their values. Somalia is controlled by people who view the US as an threat to Islam and  it is possible to guess by looking at History what they are going to be willing to do to eradicate this threat. What is the US going to do to stop them? 

A "Kerry" moment

I'm having a "Kerry" moment. What is a "Kerry" moment? It is a moment, during which you are able to be authentic, to be yourself and to speak from you heart and yet, it doesn't help you achieve your biggest dream because your chance to achieve it has passed. The thing to do when you are having one of those moments is to tell yourself that later is better than never.

John Kerry introduced an amendment with Russ Feingold (Senator from Wisconsin), Barbara Boxer (Senator from California) and Patrick Leahy (Senator from Vermont) that would set a deadline of July 1, 2007  to redeploy US troops from Iraq to somewhere else in the Middle East. He also had what I thought was an inspiring speech even though I am not sure if  the amendment he was proposing was a good solution to improve things in Iraq. My point that for if Kerry had been Kerry during the last election and has chosen to have his moment during the campaign then the charge that he was a flip flopper would not have stuck. John McCain has also a persuasive speech in which he argued that it was up to America to fix Iraq. However, the  big question is still unanswered: can America fix Iraq? Kerry's amendment was soundly defeated 86 to 13.

Breast Ironing : Gender and Africa

There is a practice in Africa (particularly in Cameroon), which is as shameful female circumcision and which aims to clean up femininity by making it less dangerous, less potent and less sexual. This practice is Breast Ironing, which involves ironing a girl's breasts to stop their development and to avoid that she matures (physically) too early and therefore becomes a prey for males too quickly. Parents who iron their daughter's breasts do it because they believe that when a young girl has breasts, she attracts male attention, has sex, and becomes promiscuous. I have written many times that African culture and traditions essentially view women as a prey and men as hunters. Women are sexual objects and a man is almost never wrong when he succumbs to the charms of a woman by having sex with it with or against her consent. Breast ironing is the result of these anti-female beliefs, which lead parents to destroy their daughter's breast in order to avoid shame and to avoid their daughters to become a sexual object, which a man will possess too early in life. The medical consequences of breast ironing are important for it can damage the breasts, but the emotional scars are overwhelming for after all, how does a girl gets over the fact that her parents, the people she trusted the most in the world, burned her breasts so that she wouldn't have sex?

The fallacies of Anti-immigration rhetoric

It is difficult to find people are arguing for a tough line against immigration without using it to make a larger point about American Identity and values. Lionel Shriver does exactly the same thing in his article by arguing that the American mythology of "the melting pot" is in part responsible for the fact that millions of people ac cross the world are willing to do anything to live in the United States:

The entire world seems to believe they have a right to live in my country, but it doesn't work the other way around; other countries are as defensive of their borders as they are oblivious of mine, and I bristle at the double standard. [...] Forever talking up the "melting pot" and our proud tradition as a "nation of immigrants", US politicians can't sabre-rattle over stricter immigration policies without sounding like hypocrites. The rest of the world doesn't believe the US has the right to police its own borders; raised on all that "huddled masses yearning to be free" folderol, Americans don't either. In short, the US has been helplessly victimised by its own bullshit

The problem with this kind of rhetoric is that it is based on false assumptions and on some prejudices.

1. Lionel Shriver is in fact arguing that the US is a victim of immigration because it has used it to shape its image. The problem with this argument is that the US has benefited more immigration than it has been hurt by it. It is impossible to study about American history without learning of immigrants who came to the US with nothing and who were able to live better lives. A good example of this is Madeleine Albright and I believe that immigrants who came to the US do not come to invade and to ruin, but to enrich it and to enrich themselves.
2. Another problem that is I have with Lionel Shriver is that she is presenting an incomplete and bias picture of the way the world views the United States. The US is envied by the world because it is one of the best countries that there is at integrating its immigrants in its society. Very few countries in the world can argue that immigrants and their children are able to participate and to even have great roles and great jobs in their societies.
3. France, for example, has an integration problem and so do most European countries. The main reason why there was unrest in the banlieues (the suburbs) of French big cities was that France hasn't make enough effort to integrate immigrants, their children and their grandchildren who are now French into the society. It has instead marginalized by pushing them away from big cities where unemployment and insecurity are commonplace.  Thus, the suburbs of France were burning last Fall because France on the contrary to the United States hasn't succeeded in making its immigrants and their descendants feel  fully French by giving them the most important benefit that comes with citizenship and that is the right to expect the State and elected officials  to improve your life.
4. Thus, the American "integration" machine is working better than the ones of other countries. Lionel Shriver could have argued for a better enforcement of US immigration without trying to make a thoughtful but erroneous point about the United States, which isn't a victim, but rather a country in transition, which is trying to figure out what it wants to be.
5. Many Americans were fine with their country being a nation of immigrants as long as these strangers looked and had the same culture than them. Now that most immigrants are no longer Europeans and the United States is becoming a real melting pot in the sense that it is becoming less and less "white", many are talking about an "immigration" crisis and about the fact that America is under siege and will stop to be Western if something isn't done.
6. Lawrence Downes makes strong points in his op-ed in the New York Times, which rebuts Lionel Shriver's arguments:

[...] it's foolish to think that walling off America and reforming immigration through enforcement alone is anything but self-defeating. It's not only because the costs of security are so high, or because the contributions that legal and illegal immigrants make to this country are so positive. Those who have been working as hard as the hard-liners have been to close this country off to people who came here to seek work and a future have a radically astringent vision of what this country should be. To militarize the border, to turn illegal immigrants into felons, means trying to reverse the polarity on the American magnet, to repel the people who have struggled, dreamed and died to get here. It means turning this singular country into just another industrial power with a declining birthrate and a self-defeating antagonism to the foreign born. It means defining down what America stands for, no matter what the cost to the American economy, its traditions and values and moral standing. It's dangerous. It's not rational. But the argument on the restrictionist side isn't about being rational. It's about being afraid.

Bush in Vienna

Everytime President Bush comes to Europe, the same ritual always happens. The officials in the visiting country do everything in their power to make sure that there aren't too many protesters in the streets and they cool down their criticism of the Bush administration in the hope that direct talks will lessen tensions and will lead America to realize that it needs Europe as much Europe needs America. The gap that exits between Bush and Europeans isn't just the results of miscommunication and a lack of finesse. It is also the results of  different visions of the world and of the way to fight terrorism. In his news conference in Vienna today, Bush had to defend one more time Guantanamo and to answer questions which implied that he was a bigger danger to the world than Iran. What worries me about the fact that the tensions that exist between America and "Europe" is the fact they are transforming the relationship from a partnership based on common values and on a friendship to a relationship, which exists solely because both sides know that divorce would be too costly. In these times of great uncertainty where violence is becoming a legitimate means to fight for an ideal, it is dangerous to have the democratic world, the nations of the world, which are the bedrock of moral values such as freedom and justice, divided.

Women, armed conflicts, quotas, and Politics

Brian Whitaker has an article in The Guardian which states this surprising fact: more women are elected in Parliaments in countries where there has been an armed conflict and the introduction of quotas to insure that there is a mandatory number of women in political institutions. His article is based on a table made by the Inter-parliamentary Union which compared the number of women in Parliaments around the world which places Rwanda at the top of the list.  The secretary general of the Inter-parliamentary Union has this explanation of the "link between Women, armed conflicts, and the strong presence of women in Parliaments:

Some of the success stories we've seen are stories where women had to assume roles during conflict that were traditionally dominated by men. [...]When the conflict was over, the women were not willing to give up the power that they had attained, and they promoted systems that then allowed them to be elected into office.

If it takes an armed conflict to make the presence of women more prevalent in countries such as Rwanda and if what is required are quotas, then what does it say about the state of the world when it comes to Gender and power.

Hiring illegal immigrants

I have mixed feelings about the hiring of illegal immigrants. On the one hand, I feel that businesses should be allowed to take advantage of illegal immigration, but on the other hand, I know that many illegal immigrants will do everything to work and that sometimes people agree to hire them because they want to help.

1. The Washington Post has an article this morning about this issue that shows that the hiring of illegal immigrants is rarely punished. I think that illegal hiring is a complex issue and it is going to be impossible in my opinion to have one inflexible approach to it.
2. There are different kinds of illegal hiring. There are people who hire illegal immigrants to help them out and those who do it to take advantage of their difficult situation.  Not making a distinction between these two different type of illegal hiring would be not only unfair, but also a mistake. 
3. It might be fairer to penalize severely business who make it a practice to hire illegal immigrants, rather than a person who is trying to help someone or a small business who hired an illegal immigrant due to negligence. I think that the focus ought to be on those who exploit illegal immigrants and who willingly make the choice to hire them so that they can cut costs and increase their profits. Illegal hiring is in my opinion not a business issue, but a justice and a social issue.
4. The most important  questions that have to asked and answered when choosing how to approach this problem are the following: who benefit from Illegal hiring? Are all forms of illegal hiring the same or are some more outrageous than others? And, finally, on whom should the responsibility be placed to avoid this problem?

Brokenhearted

I'm too depressed to write today. Les Bleus, the French football (soccer) team just tied South Korea and I have this sickening feeling that they aren't going to be able to get over this disaster and have a decent world cup. I don't know what is happening to a team, which has so much talent and so many great players. May be the lesson here is that to have a great team, more than great players are needed. I feel sorry for Zidane who after enormous pressure was put on him decided to come back and play for the national team. I need a few hours to lick my wounds and to forget this terrible match.

Immigration à la Française

The French Senate just passed a new immigration bill, whose goal is to toughen french immigration laws and to make it more difficult for people who don't have a particular profile not only to immigrate legally in French, but to become French. The man behind this law, Nicolas Sarkozy calls it "immigration choisie (chosen immigration)" because in his opinion, France should be able to choose its immigrants not only according to its economic needs, but also according to its values.

1. I think that behind this toughening of immigration laws is the belief that there are already too many immigrants in France and that the fact that too many of them and the sons and grand-children of immigrants cannot integrate French society is not due to its structures and prejudices, but rather to their unwillingness to give up their culture and religion (Islam in particular) and their resistance to "Frenchness."
2. I find it fascinating that increasingly in the West, immigration is becoming a defining issue. I don't think that this trend is surprising even though it is worrisome. I think that many in the West have an us vs. them vision in the world in the sense that they choose to view the current struggle against terrorism and other forms of irrational violence as a clash of civilizations.  It is precisely because too many people in the West believe that the clash of civilizations exist and that culture is everything that they have reached the conclusion that multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity do not work.
3. This week, Xavier Lemoine, the mayor of Montfermeil, expressed this sentiment by asserting, "it's either them or us. If they win, we are dead ducks. I am a proud French Catholic and I have no intention of living as a 'dhimmi' (a non-Muslim enjoying protected status in a Muslim country - D.B.S.) in my own country. We are different from them, and these people do not represent France. We are caught in the middle of an Islamic war being fought all over the world - in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Everything that happens over there has reverberations here in France and influences the immigrants.[...] I am pained by the thought that my country is ashamed of its culture and values. When France denies its own history and incessantly apologizes for slavery, for its conquests and for colonialism, is it any wonder that the immigrants are rising up against it and are showing no respect for it? Unfortunately, France has not demanded that they change. It has allowed them to speak Arabic and to cultivate their heritage at the expense of French culture."
4. I am not among those who believe that culture or that rather tradition and religion justify everything including the unjustifiable. I do not believe that separation, rejection, and dividing humanity are the answer to  reduce the growing gap that exists between humans despite the fact that globalization makes the physical space between us insignificant.
5. The temptation in too many countries to the current struggle against extremism and violence is to close themselves to the world and to protect their "acquis" and the purity of their race and culture by saying No to others, to strangers.
6. The French Immigration is based no only a bad interpretation of the "integration" crisis that exist in France, but also on the erroneous belief that it is possible that cultural exchanges can be controlled by the state. By selecting the immigrant merchandise to avoid getting rotten fruits, France or rather its government thinks that it will freeze time and protect its culture and values by avoiding the change (and in my opinion progress) that occurs with the mixing of cultures.
7. Like David Brooks, I believe that culture matters. However, I don't think that it is the most important thing and that it should become the determining factor in human relationships. I am not an universalist, but I believe that there are some universal or rather some global values, which are always going to make it possible for us if  we try hard to communicate and to get together.

Results over Ideology: few thoughts on Iraq

It is alarming that the current debate on Iraq in the Congress focuses on everything but on the realities on the ground and on the current results and the expected results of the Bush Iraq policy. I may be naive, but I think that Iraq ought to be a subject where partisanship has no place because of its importance and because it has become the focus of much of the Anti-Americanism in the world. While members of congress talk about supporting the troops, not cutting and running, civil war, and the illegality and immorality of this war, the most important questions remained unanswered: What can the US realistically accomplish in Iraq and what will be the costs of accomplishing those goals?

Flag Burning and Patriotism...

Bob Kerrey has an op-ed in the Washington post in which he argues against any attempt to make flag burning a crime. He writes, "If our First Amendment is altered to permit laws to be passed prohibiting flag desecration, would we like to see our police powers used to arrest an angry mother who burns a flag? Or a brother in arms whose disillusionment leads him to defile this symbol of the nation? I hope the answer is no. I hope we are strong enough to tolerate such rare and wrenching moments. I hope our desire for calm and quiet does not make it a crime for any to demonstrate in such a fashion. In truth, if I know anything about the spirit of our compatriots, some Americans might even choose to burn their flag in protest of such a law."

I agree with him. I think that the United States is too great of a country to be desecrated just by the destruction of its flags. It isn't the US flag that makes America, but America that makes the US flag. As long as America stands for what it has always stood, a land of opportunity and remains what it has always been, a place where freedom is essential, it will remain in the hearts and the minds of the people who respect this value a country too great to be damaged by the burning of a symbol.

An uneventful visit: few words on the visit of President Bush in Iraq

The second "surprise" visit of President Bush to Iraq dominated the news yesterday and I don't think that it was a groundbreaking event and that it deserved all the coverage that it received. Sheryl Stolberg made the following point on this visit, which I believe is right on point, "In a sense, Mr. Bush went to Iraq with few options. There is little evidence that security is improving, and the president has long said American soldiers will not leave until the Iraqis assume that responsibility. So instead, the White House is turning to a strategy that proved successful in the elections of 2004, insisting Mr. Bush will stay the course while at the same time making Iraq a proxy for the broader national security debate." I think that this visit was purely symbolic in the sense that it will not change the situation on the ground and in the sense that it shows in fact that the Bush administration is not the most important actor in Iraq. I believe that a visit by a head of state in Iraq will be worth all the press that President Bush's visit got when it will be one made by one other than Blair or Bush because then that visit will show that there is somebody else who views Iraq as an important part of the struggle against terrorism. The problem is that for now, Iraq remains mostly the problem of Americans, British and Iraqis.

Immigration, integration, and shared values

The Washington Post had a good article yesterday on immigrants and integration, which showed that most of the arguments used by those who are against immigration are untrue.

1. The authors of the article point out that most Latino immigrants speak english well and that “Only 7 percent of the children of Latino immigrants speak Spanish as a primary language, and virtually none of their children do.” The fear that Spanish is suddenly going to surpass english and become the national english of the US is therefore based on prejudice not reality.
2. The most important point made in the article is that integration isn't a problem because “For all the rhetoric on both sides, the evidence deserves a closer look. Latino immigrants, like generations of immigrants before, are entering the mainstream of life in the United States. Ours is the best country in the world at assimilating immigrants. This should be a badge of honor, and one that we wear proudly.”
3. I think that when people use integration to argue against immigration, they are in fact saying that their biggest fear isn't that immigrants won't assimilate but rather that they will integrate America and change it. Immigration scares people because they don't want there to be an exchange between American culture and culture, which they consider to be inferior. These fears are irrational because there is a lot more in common between different cultures than differences. Although globalization hasn't led to uniformity, it has made it possible for us to realize that shared values exist across varied societies and cultures since they are the ones who are making globalization, this compression between time and space possible.

Sometimes, it is better to remain silent: a few words on the recent suicides at Gitmo

I was shocked when I heard the comments by a number of members of the Bush administration asserting that the three suicides, which occur in Guantanamo were a Public relations move.

1. What separates the terrorists from the rest of us is the value that we place on a human life. The fact that the people in Guantanamo are "dangerous" in the eyes of the Bush Administration doesn't mean that their lives have no value and that their suicides should be treated in such a careless fashion as it was this weekend.
2. If we are ever going to defeat terrorism, we need to remind ourselves that we need to not only win hearts and minds, but also to show and to convince the world that there are lines that cannot be crossed in order to achieve an aim. I don't want the distinction between civility and barbarism to be blurred by comments as reckless and appalling as Admiral Harris made about the fact that three Gitmo inmates "chose" to end their lives.
3. I believe that Gitmo has to be close because the comments of this weekend shows that the base isn't helping the image of America and it is impossible for it to remain open without compromising American values. Gitmo is making the world view the US in the same light as it views people who valued their objectives enough to kill themselves and others to accomplish it. Gitmo to me represents everything that the US does not stand for, it is the antithesis of the Statue of Liberty, which exemplifies American ideals. I don't know if Gitmo is the Gulag, but I think that the fact that an argument can be made that it is shows that the US is fighting a useless battle that it cannot win and the price to keep it open is too high.

World Cup fever

I got world cup fever. I can't concentrate on anything else since the world cup started on Friday. I am impatiently waiting for the first game of the US tomorrow against the Czech Republic. My hope is that Americans support their team because it has the chance to do something special. A lot of reasons have been given to explain the lack of interest that Americans have for football (soccer) and for the world cup, I think it will change if they finally get something to cheer for or at least I hope that it will change. Anyway, my opinion of the world cup so far is that there isn't as wide of a gap between small and big teams and the playing field has been leveled which is great for small countries like Trinidad and Tobago for example which not only qualified, but held Sweden to a draw.

Standing by your child: the Duke Rape trial and parental responsibility

Anne Hull has a great article on the Duke lacrosse players accused of rape and their parents. The article illustrates I believe how difficult it is to be objective in a matter where your child is involved. I do not fault the parents for standing behind their sons, but I just feel uneasy about the contrasts and the inequalities within this case.  I think that we will never know what happened that night, and that the outcome of the trial matters on just one thing, the ability of the powerful lawyers hired by the parents of the Duke students to show that the alleged victim cannot be believed. Unfortunately in a rape case, everything is about appearances and about power and in this case, those two key factors are on one side, the one of the Duke players.

The death of Zarqawi and the future of Iraq

 

I read this morning on the Guardian, a good article on Al Zarqawi and on what his death will mean for Iraq. The author of the article, Zeyad A lives in Iraq and talks about the fact that Zarqawi wasn't, in his opinion, an important factor in the situation in Iraq and that his death isn't going to change much.

1. He writes,“I have always believed, unlike some of my  countrymen, that Zarqawi was real but also irrelevant. I have always thought that he was a kind of publicity agent employed by local Iraqi armed groups, one that could bring in a steady flow of recruits (useful fools) from the Islamic and Arab world to carry out deeds that they did not want to be openly associated with.” He argues that Zarqawi succeeded in starting a civil war in Iraq.
2. It is true that it is hard to blame the situation in Iraq on a man because it is clear that he will be easily replaced.  I wonder if  it is possible to use the fact that Zarqawi is death to bring Iraqis together or whether the gap between Iraqis is so large that more is needed or that even separation needs to become an option.

A few words on the death of Al Zarqawi

When I heard of the death of Al Zarqawi, I thought of Nicholas Berg, that young man whom Zarqawi killed like an animal by cutting his throat just because he was American. I don't know if the death of Al Zarqawi will save Iraq or rather will make the mission of the US easier, but I know that it means that a man who had enough enough hate within him to decapitate another human being is no longer a part of this world. I would have preferred that Zarqawi be caught alive so that he could face justice and be denied "martyrdom" but I understand that it would have been difficult to do so.  Because it is hard for me to be find happiness in the death of another human being no matter how despicable he was,  I am focusing on the fact that there is less hateful person in the world even though I know that his death may have created more hateful and more dangerous people.

How to salvage Iraq?

David Ignatius has some interesting suggestions in this morning’s Washington Post about how to salvage Iraq.

1. He asserts that the US mission in Iraq isn’t succeeding and that there is a civil war in Iraq. He writes, “What we're seeing in Iraq is a mismatch between ends and means: between a political strategy of unity and the reality of feuding factional leaders; between a military strategy of "clear, hold and build" counterinsurgency and the reality that most American soldiers remain hunkered down every day; between the goal of stabilizing the country and the daily reality of physical intimidation.”
2.   He makes the following proposal to salvage Iraq: “…Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should move his government's 27 ministries, which increasingly are operating in the Green Zone, out into the city. The Iraqi army would protect each outpost of the government, aided by U.S. teams. "The population needs to see there is a government that has the courage to reclaim the city, one district at a time."”
3. The question that I have after reading this article is whether Iraq is still salvageable and whether what Ignatius proposes will suffice to do what more than 3 years of war haven't. I hope that Iraq is salvageable because otherwise it would have been a terrible waste of resources and more importantly of human lives.

My Lai and Haditha

Christopher Hitchens has written an excellent article in which he argues that Haditha isn't My Lai.

1. He argues strongly that Iraq is different than Vietnam and that the US military isn't fighting the Vietcong but what he calls, the "Iraqis Khmer Rouge."
2. Where I disagree with Mister Hitchens because I think he goes too far is when he writes:   "Those who say that the rioters in Baghdad in the early days should have been put down more forcefully are accepting the chance that a mob might have had to be fired on to protect the National Museum. Those who now wish there had been more troops are also demanding that there should have been more targets and thus more body bags. The lawyers at Centcom who refused to give permission to strike Mullah Omar's fleeing convoy in Afghanistan—lest it by any chance be the wrong convoy of SUVs speeding from Kabul to Kandahar under cover of night—are partly responsible for the deaths of dozens of Afghan teachers and international aid workers who have since been murdered by those who were allowed to get away. If Iraq had been stuffed with WMD warehouses and stiff with al-Qaida training camps, there would still have been an Abu Ghraib. Only pacifists—not those who compare the Iraqi killers to the Minutemen—have the right to object to every casualty of war. And if the pacifists had been heeded, then Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein would all still be in power—hardly a humanitarian outcome. People like to go on about the "fog" of war as well as the "hell" of it. Hell it most certainly is—but not always so foggy. Indeed, many of the dilemmas posed by combat can be highly clarifying, once the tone of righteous sententiousness is dropped."
3. Something within me just rebels when I hear someone as brilliant as Hitchens places the blame the wrong decisions made in Afghanistan and Iraq on those who didn't make them. I find suspect the fact that he equates Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein because by linking them, he is simplifying situations that are too complex and too different.

Haditha and politics

Bill Kristol has an article in the Weekly Standard, which is offensive because of what it does. It tries to make an matter, Haditha, that should be black and a white and a matter of morality and ethics, a matter a politics.

1. He writes, "No, it isn't. The last thing we need in response to Haditha is hand-wringing liberalism. The war against the jihadists, a war Beinart supports, is not a metaphorical one. Liberals may want to win a war on terror without fighting, and are shocked that in a war, crimes and abuses occur. But here's the hard, Trumanesque truth:terrible things happen, including crimes and abuses and cover-ups.Let's be clear: Crimes and cover-ups cannot be excused or tolerated. They must be investigated, and the individuals involved, and their commanders, must be held accountable and punished. As the Marine Corps commandant points out, the Marine Hymn pledges that we "keep our honor clean." This is happening. All nations' soldiers commit crimes, and decent nations punish them. But it is not true that "what makes us an exceptional nation with the capacity to lead and inspire the world" is that we recognize we can be barbaric and that we punish barbarism."
2. Mr. Kristol's words appall me is because again he avoids the real issue by making Haditha a political issue when it shouldn't be. I agree with those who believe that Haditha does not mean that Iraq is a failure and that the US should leave, but I cannot agree with those who are willing in the name to what they believe to be a just cause to accept  unjust and appalling events.
3. It is telling that Mr. Kristol chooses to focus on what he calls the liberal response to Haditha as if there is a left and a right way to see Haditha. His choice to make it be about politics shows that he has run out of arguments and that he is unwilling to have a real discussion about Iraq and about what should the goals of the US in that country.
4. Bill Kristol could have simply made the point that Iraq is still winnable and that Haditha is an anomaly and not the symptom of a deeper problem. I prefer to hear people such as Tom Friedman talks about Iraq and argue honorably that Iraq isn't a lost cause. I think that American stands a lot more than what Bill Kristol believes it stands for and that maintaining a good image is as important as anything else because it is the key the exercise of soft power.  I believe that it is impossible to base American policy on idealism and then to argue that bad things happen in War and that events on the ground are not relevant to the accomplishment of a noble goal which is to make Iraq a stable democracy.

Seeing the forest through the trees in Iraq: Haditha and Culture

I just read this article about Iraq and military culture, which I believe poses interesting questions about the future of the US military in Iraq.

1. The authors of the article write, “American veterans of the war in Iraq have described a culture of casual violence, revenge and prejudice against Iraqi civilians that has made the killing of innocent bystanders a common occurrence.” I think that if this is true it is because the mission of the military in Iraq isn’t clearly defined and that Americans soldiers don’t know what their role is supposed to be. Are they supposed to crush the insurgency? Are they supposed to maintain order? Are they just supposed to stand up until the Iraqi military is able to? If the problem is one of culture, then ethics training will not be enough to remedy the problem, which clearly exists.
2. The Haditha incident shows that the problem isn’t about the few soldiers who apparently snapped and killed Iraqis. The problem seems to be that the military hasn’t yet adapted to the situation and hasn’t yet figured out what its role is. May be the problem is simply that there isn’t a military solution to this conflict. I cannot even begin to image how it must be for a marine to be in a war zone where it is incredibly difficult to know where who is a innocent civilian and who isn’t. American soldiers may be caught up in a situation where they are not only radioactive, but where they are also a target for every one.
3. The most interesting questions are however is how to avoid such incidents in the future and more importantly how to avoid that the troops become the subject of Iraqi revenge. I am afraid that time alone will not suffice to provide answers to this question and that there might no be a way to make Iraq a less deadly place not only for Iraqis, but also for American soldiers. 

Bushlandia and America: a tale of two Americas

There is an article in the Guardian this morning on Bushlandia. What is Bushlandia? It is the part of America where Bush can't do no wrong. In the most interesting part of the article, the author tells us what distinguishes Bushlandia from the rest of America:

“The divide between Bushlandia and the rest of America - or, more generally, between the president's core supporters and everyone else - is not a question of mere policy arguments. It is a clash of two incompatible versions of reality, where the same facts take on completely different meanings. For Idaho Republicans, escalating violence in Iraq illustrates precisely the scale of the challenge there, and the consequent need to stay loyal. Mr Bush's errors, meanwhile, are not an argument for his removal so much as a sign of his human fallibility. "You go into something like Iraq, nobody can know how it's going to turn," Governor Risch said. "People say Saddam was terrible because he tortured his people, now Bush is awful because he invaded. Well, which do you want?"”

Ethics training: Haditha and the insufficiency of the response so far

I know that there is a lot that we don't know about Haditha and that we have to wait before making definitive assertions about that incident. However, there is few things that can be said without putting more oil on the fire.

1. I am disappointed, by the response so far. I find it hard to believe that it is only three years after the start of the war in Iraq, that there is a talk about the need for ethics training to make soldiers more prepared to deal with the Iraqi contest.
2. Without knowing all the facts and without rushing to judgment, I believe that we can pose two important questions about the Haditha incident. The first is whether it is acceptable to blame Haditha on a few soldiers. I don't think that it is. Haditha shows that there is something wrong with the way the army is run and I don't believe that the sole responsibility for this incident as for Abu Ghraib should fall on a few soldiers.
3. The second question is how to deal with the repercussions of Haditha. Is a probe enough or is it necessary to clean house, by that I mean to get rid of the people whose responsibility it was to make sure that the US military represents the values of the United States.

Engaging Iran...

I wonder whether the announcement made by Condi Rice yesterday that the US will join multilateral talks with means that the US has decided to engage Iran.

1. I have argued that the US should engage Iran because not talking was a way to ensure that the current crisis continues and leads to inevitable confrontation. However, I wonder (maybe unfairly) whether the fact the US has decided to talk means that it is ready to have dialogue with Iran.
2. Paul Reynolds writes on the BBC website the following, “Two scenarios are opening up. There is a benign one and a malign one. In the benign one, the doves, led by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have won the argument in Washington. This, it is hoped, will lead to direct talks with Iran, which will agree on a package under which to end its enrichment of uranium. In exchange, it will receive a bag of goodies that will include help with civil nuclear power and trade concessions. In the malign scenario, the hawks in Washingtonhave gone along with the move in the belief that an offer of direct talks now will improve their arguments for military action later. They think this initiative will lead nowhere because Iran will not negotiate seriously even if it agrees to talks - and when it all breaks down, they will have been shown to have gone the extra mile. Whichever scenario eventually plays out, this is probably the last diplomatic throw of the dice.”
3. I don't any of these scenarios, but I know that there may no good outcome possible in the Iran crisis. I hope that having open a door, which it refused to open for more than six years, the Bush administration will really follow the diplomatic course. I hope that it will listen to its allies and put more things on the table than it is taking off it. This will make more difficult for Iran to divide the West and to argue that it is the US, which has the most inflexible position.