Back on topic

I was looking over my most recent entries last night, and realized that I've moved incredibly away from my original focus, which is international post-conflict... stuff. Anyway, let's get back to that with a little humor. You may have seen it before, but now you can enjoy it again.

I thought she retired

Allow me to just go ahead and jump into the chorus of people laughing at Cindy Sheehan's announcement that she'll (maybe) challenge Nancy Pelosi for her seat in Congress in 2008.

Now let me take a moment to prove my bona fides here. I'm just about as anti-Iraq War as they get, and I'll gladly point out the various reasons why that effort was and is both illegal and unethical. I'm not yet a pacifist, but a Quaker education and a degree in peace have pushed me markedly in that direction. Nevertheless, I have a long-standing (though rarely mentioned) beef with Cindy Sheehan (not that I've ever met her).

Plenty of people have gone on about how she's unqualified for this and that, how she takes overly simplistic positions on incredibly complex subjects, etc. I'll leave those arguments to their merits (or lack thereof).

My thing is this. Cindy Sheehan is far too possessive of the "parent of an Iraq War service personnel killed in action" mantel. I hear her story about her son's service and her grief at his loss and it is truly heartbreaking, and certainly one I empathize with. However, through her things like setting up Camp Casey and naming every soldier and marine that's fallen and claiming that they died in vain, she's disrespecting the memories of those individuals. I won't tell her how she should remember her son or what she should feel about his loss. But she shouldn't go around telling the other parents/loved ones to be enraged. Some parents/spouses/children of deceased Iraq veterans believe that their family's victim in the war died honorably, in an honorable cause. No matter how much Cindy Sheehan, or anyone else, feels about the war and its consequences, absolutely no one has the right to challenge people in their grieving. Sheehan should have respected the wishes of those families who did not want their loved one's names displayed at Camp Casey (and elsewhere) and who did not want to be connected with the message she was conveying. She simply cannot rightly claim ownership over and complete understanding of every single U.S. military death in Iraq or Afghanistan, and her claim to speak for all war-dead parents is totally unfounded. It's painfully disrespectful and frankly rude.

Now my faith in any elected representative is virtually nil, and my trust of them is even less existent. This definitely means I don't really like any of them. Nonetheless, I truly wish Speaker Pelosi the best in a potential campaign against Cindy Sheehan. Besides, I thought Sheehan was supposed to have bowed out of public life by now.

Stop misusing this word

As we say in my mother land, I'm "plum sick and tired" of the consistent misuse of the word "reconciliation" that has bounced about the international affairs world in the past six months or so. This most often occurs in the context of discussions of Iraq or Somalia, and in both cases the use is nearly always wrong. For examples, see here (near the end of the article) and here.

What all these politicians actually mean when they use the word reconciliation in either Somalia or Iraq is "cease-fire." That's right, cease-fire. This talk of reconciliation is a ruse. They use reconciliation because terms like cease-fire, armistice, etc., imply that Mr. Shit has met Mr. Fan, and the results aren't so hot.

Who's most responsible for this curious turn of phrase? Why, members of the Bush Administration, of course. We all know how well Iraq has turned out. Somalia, it seems, hasn't gone any better, even when we let Ethiopia fight it as our proxy.

Friends, the end of shooting/bombing/slaughter does not reconciliation make. Nor can reconciliation be agreed to via legislation, as is touted in Iraq, or in negotiations, as have been repeatedly delayed in Somalia. Reconciliation is a society-wide process that involves the pursuit of justice, the identification of truth, the factually informed assignment of historical responsibility, and finally (and most difficult to achieve), the transformation of conflict-generating and conflict-sustaining relationships into mechanisms for peaceable coexistence (see Nadim Rouhana, 2004). All this, quite obviously, cannot be accomplished by 5 or 50 guys sitting around in a room.

As much Somalia would benefit from a cessation of hostilities between the Hawiye and the Darood dominated Government forces, this wouldn't be reconciliation. It would be an end of fighting. Reconciliation could only even begin to come after this crucial step. The same holds true for the various patterns of inter- and intra-group violence seen in Iraq. The various political types that keep preaching this misnamed objective (the UN has gotten on board too, and the media hasn't questioned it), need to state their real short-term desires. They want a cease-fire. Of course, reconciliation can and should remain a goal for both Somalia and Iraq, but first things first.

Help for the UN, version 1.0

It seems as though your world peace and security apparatus is dysfunctional.

What would you like to do?

1) Plead with the world's only remaining superpower to stop ignoring it whenever said superpower can't get its way.

2) Send yet another terse letter to that pesky African dictator who keeps thwarting its plans, reminding him that the decisions of the peace and security apparatus are legally binding.

3) Create another committee, to create subcommittees, to think about how one might make the peace and security apparatus less resemblant of the Stone Age.

4) Outsource to regional conglomerates, regardless of capabilities.

5) Have Lakhdar Brahimi make it work -- they don't call him Mr. Fix-it for nothing.

6) Replace all apparatus members with high school students and hope that they can do better.

Photo from here.

The State Department wants YOU for cannon fodder

You know State is desperate when they start placing ads like this on job listservs that are often aimed at the young but brilliant crowd (of which I am of course a part). Now they volunteers to sign up to work in Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq. Personally, I think such teams are a decent idea, and if operationlized correctly could provide some good progress in Iraq and elsewhere (a different variety of these PRTs is used in Afghanistan). However, by their very nature, they require working in less secure areas, and you know just how well Americans are received in Iraq at present. Media reports (I didn't save links, sorry) have shown that the only people already at State that want to take these jobs are young up and comers who have been assured more rapid career advancement if they go out and dodge a few bullets.

I think I'm actually decently qualified now to do the kind of work they're seeking, especially rule of law stuff, but I don't know Arabic or Kurdish, and also want to see my 25th birthday.

Anyway, the ad is below, in case your church/synagogue/temple/mosque is capable of holding a big enough bake sale to purchase the body armor that will at least keep you from being shot up, though it is remarkably less effective against being blown up. Good luck.

--

PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TEAMS (PRT)

Are you interested in a unique opportunity to serve abroad? Join the US Department of State.

The Department of State is seeking to hire skilled US Citizens to fill positions in Iraq. Several positions are with Provincial Reconstruction Teams located throughout Iraq.

The PRT mission is to assist Iraq's provincial governments: to develop a transparent and sustained capability to govern, to promote increased security and rule of law, to encourage political and economic development, and to provide services that will meet the basic needs of the Iraqi people.

We are currently looking for applicants with skills, experience and expertise in the following fields: Governance, Economics, Rule of Law, Agri-Business, Veterinary Medicine, City Management/Engineering, Business Specialist, Medical, Public Diplomacy and Industry Specialists. If you are interested, please send your resume to IRAQPRTS@STATE.GOV. Note your area of expertise in the subject line of the e-mail.

State of the Hangover 2007

Madam Speaker, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, fellow citizens,

I begin this address they way it should always begin, with these words:

The state of our hangover is strong!

That said, there is a need to offer some critique as to the state of our Union. After watching the president last night, I must say that I remain unconvinced about basically everything he proposed. The health insurance scheme just came across as confusing and even bizarre, with even the vice president looking uncertain. The talk of balancing the budget should not be taken at only face value. The real source of U.S. growing debt is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which thus far have been financed in non-budget supplemental bills. Thus while there is a deficit in the regular budget, the far greater problem is these security funds which aren't even included in the budget. Yes, we should control earmarks. But we also need to realize that tax cuts to the wealthy probably wasn't the best idea.

Take a moment to worry over immigration. Them Mexicans are coming over faster than the Minute Men can shoot 'em. That's why we're gonna build a big fence to keep them out. The illegals, obviously. And of course terrorists. Terrorists are everywhere. The other domestic issues mentioned I have largely forgotten, as I was drinking pretty fast.

With regard to national security, I cannot reiterate enough the heart of the president's message: Be afraid, be very afraid. Them terr'ists is comin' to get you, your little cute babies with the plump cheeks, and your puppies. In fact, they're going to destroy all the puppies. Kitties too. Be afraid. They're after us. They'll attack us as we sleep, as we refill our SUVs with the shit-tons of fuel that fund their operations, and as we gorge ourselves on massive volumes of corn-product-based fast food items. Be afraid, dammit. That FDR guy, and his little snippit about "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" was obviously, gravely, tragically mistaken.

As for our current military ventures abroad, the president wants you to trust that by continuing to do the exact same thing we've been doing, we will see success. Someday. Hopefully soon. Those sovereign Iraqis need to do what we tell them to. Also, at least there has been some realization that the country is too stretched to blow up Iran or DPRK right now, but that will certainly not stop us from lobbing a few bombs into Somalia every now and again.

In last bits of substance, lets talk about malaria and saving African babies. Look at that tall dude from the big country of Africa who does something decent back in his village. Remember that of course there are no cities in that big country. Just quaint villages. And mosquitos. Basically I'm saying this to get Bill Gates and those Darfur bitches off my back.

And hey, look at all those other brave people who do good things.

And freedom, liberty, and et cetera.

God bless... _____?

The less than loyal opposition responds

Friends, the president is a shit head. He's done a whole lot of wrong. In fact, Senator Webb's not even gonna bother to rebut him. Just send out a friendly reminder that the Senator's son is in Iraq while Jenna and Barbara are terrorizing Latin America. Also, remember George, if you don't lead, we will (and you won't like it).

Why the Bush Iraq plan will fail

I realize the title sounds presumptuous, but hear me out. The President's plan for Iraq won't work primarily because it relies on a military solution, though even its economic elements are shaky. The main problem here is that the United States lacks legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis, and thus cannot be an honest broker in whatever peace process may exist.

The most problematic element is the U.S. military presence in Iraq. These forces made fast work of overthrowing the admittedly nasty regime of Saddam Hussein, and then became an occupying force backed up by what was essentially a colonial government in the form of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). While many Iraqis undoubtedly had no lost love for Hussein (as evidenced by the circumstances around his execution), it is incredibly unlikely that they wanted a foreign force to come in and essentially replace him. Think of the American Revolution led not by the colonists, but by the French, who then installed their own regime while we got our act together. It wouldn't be so popular, would it?

President Bush wants more troops in order to stabilize the country, particularly Baghdad and its environs. Yet because our forces lack legitimacy (meaning no Iraqis in theater ever invited them in), they cannot possibly fulfill the role of a stabilization force. Such forces require some degree of impartiality, which an invader turned occupier force simply cannot truly exercise. This is why a phased withdrawal combined with a robust capacity building program is essential to American strategy in Iraq. American forces are, and always will be, targets of insurgents bent on driving the Americans out of Iraq.

Similar arguments can be made for U.S. attempts at restoring/sparking Iraqi economic growth. Here again, American actors lack the legitimacy and impartiality needed to be seen as acting in good faith. While I am pleased that the Administration is coming around to the need for non-military measures, the tactics laid out lack the key element of legitimacy and thus cannot be sustained. On a slightly different note, the connection made between codifying a law on oil resources and promoting national reconciliation is a bit bizarre. If anything, the debate over how to divide Iraq's oil wealth among its constituent groups is the most contentious issue in the country. Only if some sort of agreement were reached that somehow managed to satisfy Shi'a, Sunnis and Kurds could there be some moves towards reconciliation. Yet given the broader political climate in the country, this outcome seems unlikely for many years.

Furthermore, the President's plan relies heavily on playing rough with Iraq's neighbors, particularly Iran and Syria. That simply will not work. You cannot seek support for rebuilding a country while simultaneously alienating two adjacent countries. Like it or not, the autocrats in Damascus and Tehran will have to be engaged in this process. As we have seen in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, American tough talk and belligerence will only be met by the same from the other side.

I don't have a plan for Iraq myself. Obviously the President and other policymakers have tremendously more resources at their disposal than some lowly grad student. Yet I feel like there can be no success -- at least defined as anything beyond getting our forces out in mostly one piece -- without some sort of internationalization of the effort. Have the Iraqis ask some respectable third part to come in. Of course in present circumstances that will be nearly impossible, not only because Iraq is now the hot potato of the world, but also because the world's peacekeeping/peace enforcement capacity is stretched pretty thin. Additionally, the U.S. is unlikely to want to deploy troops to other places as part of other international missions, even if it totally withdraws from Iraq. While I'm reluctant to use the word quagmire, I would classify the present situation we're in vis a vis Iraq as a bit of a pickle.

If you're interested, compare and contrast the President's speech tonight with the Iraq Study Group and Joint Chiefs of Staff (if you can find it) reports that came out last month.

UPDATE: Here is a nice chart from NYT comparing different proposed plans with the Bush speech.

A few thoughts on war

I recently watched the film Turtles Can Fly, which is the first film that was produced in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The film centers around children in pre-2003 invasion Kurdistan, who make their living by collecting landmines and sorting mortar casings. And that, I assure you, is the least of the war-time horrors portrayed. Yet there is an odd beauty in the film, but that doesn't make the subject matter any more palatable.

Like most Americans at this point, I am troubled by the war in Iraq. As the civilian death toll is now in the hundreds of thousands and the military death toll is now above that of September 11, I find this war, which I have always viewed as illegal and unjustified, even more repugnant. Cloaking the whole venture in the language of some unwinable War on Terror makes it even more disgusting. Anyone who thinks that destroying a whole country and the subsequent killing of such a massive number of people is acceptable in avenging and/or preventing a terrorist attack that killed 3,000, is sorely mistaken. Not only does this war fly completely in the face of accepted norms of proportionality, it has no clear purpose, no defined goals, and a continually diminishing measure of success.

Yet I am most disturbed by the effects and affects of the war on Iraqis themselves. This past summer, for the first time, I saw first-hand the effects of war among Liberian refugees. In some cases, living with a destroyed economic and political system is the least of concerns. The question of survival perpetually looms large. The psychological effects of the whole affair are particularly destructive. How do children cope with having witnessed their parents violently killed in front of them? How do women deal with children that are the product of rape by armed gangs of militants? What does one do when the entire network of social support, both formal and informal, has been torn from beneath them?

In a political context, the wars in Iraq and Liberia are almost completely dissimilar. But in terms of civilian costs, they aren't that much different. Yet these are exactly the costs that are usually ignored. Even as the world adopts lofty language like the responsibility to protect, the world's superpower, through its hubris, has sparked a huge slaughter of civilians. War is, and should be, an extension of policy. But what if that policy is flawed? What if the policymakers are unwilling to deal with reality? What if the whole war policy was based upon faulty factual and legal assumptions from the outset?

These are just a few thoughts. Don't take them as me diminishing the effect of terror attacks on American soil. Don't take them as assaults on the military - they don't make war, they just implement it. Just understand that this is a little of where I come from, and outlines a few things I'm currently mulling.