Engagement With Syria

Here's something else that blew right by me a couple days ago - the US will send an ambassador back to Syria after a four-year absence.

Syria is an interesting case, the "swing vote" in the Muslim world, if you will. They have allied themselves with Iran on occasion, and certainly have meddled in Lebanon. But they've also shown a willingness to reach out toward the West. President Bashar al-Assad is a somewhat more liberal figure than his father, although he still cracks down on dissent and has been linked to the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. But this return to the region reflects the President's general belief in engaging all countries to find areas of agreement. A unilateral pullout did not serve us well.

The loss of U.S. diplomatic leverage in the region -- because of opposition among many Arabs to the Iraq war and a perceived U.S. favoritism toward Israel -- has left a vacuum in recent years filled in large part by Iran. The decision to return the ambassador to Syria, senior administration officials said, represents the restoration of a sustained U.S. diplomatic presence in a secular Arab country central to many U.S. interests in the region.

"It did not make any sense to us not to be able to speak with an authoritative voice in Damascus," the senior administration official said. "It was our assessment that total disengagement has not served our interests."

If there were a legitimate partner for peace in Israel right now, this engagement would probably bear immediate fruit, as Syria and Israel were discussing a peace agreement over the Golan Heights as recently as late 2007. But as Iran implodes and instability potentially spreads, tipping Syria closer to the West, or even removing the standoffishness, changes the balance of power and will help lower the temperature of the US-Muslim relationship.

A Syria Deal?

What I think is more interesting in Seymour Hersh's latest than the predictable Cheney comments about President Obama ("he's pro-Palestinian," etc.), is this idea that Israel will sit down and hammer out a peace agreement with Syria, returning them the Golan Heights:

A few days after the Israeli ceasefire in Gaza, (Syrian President) Assad said in an e-mail to me that although Israel was “doing everything possible to undermine the prospects for peace,” he was still very interested in closing the deal. “We have to wait a little while to see how things will evolve and how the situation will change,” Assad said. “We still believe that we need to conclude a serious dialogue to lead us to peace.”

American and foreign government officials, intelligence officers, diplomats, and politicians said in interviews that renewed Israeli-Syrian negotiations over the Golan Heights are now highly likely, despite Gaza and the elections in Israel in February, which left the Likud Party leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the head of a coalition that includes both the far right and Labor. Those talks would depend largely on America’s willingness to act as the mediator, a role that could offer Barack Obama his first—and perhaps best—chance for engagement in the Middle East peace process.

A senior Syrian official explained that Israel’s failure to unseat Hamas from power in Gaza, despite the scale of the war, gave Assad enough political room to continue the negotiations without losing credibility in the Arab world. Assad also has the support of Arab leaders who are invested in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani,* the ruler of Qatar, said last month when I saw him in Doha that Assad must take any reasonable steps he can to keep the talks going. “Syria is eager to engage with the West,” he said, “an eagerness that was never perceived by the Bush White House. Anything is possible, as long as peace is being pursued.”

Obviously, the racist Israeli Foreign Minister, who said today that concessions invite war, may prove an impediment. But I'm guessing that Obama figures he could ring up a quick victory in the Middle East peace process by moving this along. In addition, it moves Syria a little more out of Iran's orbit, which could either bring Iran along into negotiations or isolate them. And it bolsters the possibility of a broader Middle East peace process.

The President said today that he will engage in "frank discussions" with the Israeli government in moving them to the bargaining table on a two-state solution. And with Netanyahu already unfavorable on his first day as Israeli Prime Minister, he could probably use something like a Syrian deal as well. I'm glad the US is operating with what appears to be a firm hand in the region, and they shouldn't kid themselves about the stakes:

Israelis, in other words, are not on the whole nearly this nutty. Which I think makes the case that it’s important for Western governments, most of all the United States of America, to not pretend that this Israeli government is anything other than what it is. A government headed by a Prime Minister who wants to bomb Iran, who thinks he can dictate regional strategy to the President of the United States, and who opposes the creation of an independent Palestinian state backed up by a main coalition partner who rejects the concept of land-of-peace and the basic precepts of liberal democracy is just not a government you can work with as an ally. People keep saying that Netanyahu is more pragmatic than his rhetoric but if so he needs to demonstrate that pragmatism fast, or else the world will just have to hope his coalition collapse sooner rather than later.

Now, this other Hersh idea that Cheney has stay-behinds inside the US Government, I'd definitely like to hear more about that. But the Cheney stuff in this particular article are a sidelight.

Clinton's Middle East Adventure

Setting aside war policy, Barack Obama's strategy for dealing with the world, while secondary to current economic concerns, has been fairly good. He's delivered on the promise of using diplomacy over belligerence, most recently by sending envoys to Syria to hopefully break them out of Iran's sphere of influence, welcome them back in the world community, and move forward on an expected peace treaty between them and Israel. Obama's somewhat odd letter to Russia, seeking their help in controlling Iran's nuclear desires in exchange for removing missile defense, was a bit misunderstood. I think that the letter was part of an effort to reset US-Russian relations, and aside from Iran this includes strategic arms limitation talks and better economic cooperation. In 95% of the cases, you can see a fostering of better understanding with the nations of the world, a rejection of the unilateralism of the Bush years, and a move to a better path.

Then there's the other 5%. And that was highlighted by Hillary Clinton's Middle East trip this week. First, she arguably poisoned upcoming Iranian negotiations by expressing pessimism that they will be productive. I just don't understand why this is something you say out loud, even if the comments were in a private meeting and leaked (I wonder who leaked them - Dennis Ross?). Then there were her visits to Israel and the West Bank, which exuded both optimism for a solution and yet also a lack of even-handedness. She called the movement toward a Palestinian state inescapable, and the goal a comprehensive solution on all fronts. She also called plans by the Israelis to bulldoze Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem unhelpful, which they are. And yet, beyond the talk, in the first instance of tangible action at a donor's conference to rebuild Gaza, Clinton and the US limited and conditioned its aid package:

The Obama administration intends to spend most of a $900-million Palestinian aid package on support for the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, rather than in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip communities that were badly damaged in the recent weeks-long Israeli offensive, a State Department official said Sunday.

Robert A. Wood, the department's chief spokesman, said that about $300 million of the money would be spent on humanitarian relief for Gaza, and the remainder would help offset the Palestinian Authority's budget shortfall and fund its economic development, security and other projects in the West Bank. The authority is run by the more moderate Palestinian faction Fatah.

None of the money will go to rebuilding Gaza, even though the aid is to be announced today at an international donors conference convened by Egypt for reconstruction in the war-scarred seaside enclave.

This is the same kind of walling off of Hamas that has paradoxically improved their standing with their own people. Marc Lynch writes:

But her remarks suggest that rather than seize on the possibility of Palestinian reconciliation, Clinton prefers to double-down on the shopworn "West Bank first, Fatah only" policy which has been conspiciously failing for the last two years. The concrete manifestation: two-thirds of the U.S. contribution to the reconstruction of Gaza will go not to Gaza but to the West Bank.

I understand what Clinton is trying to do, and appreciate the challenges facing her team as it navigates this shattered environment. But her approach risks missing an important possible opportunity to reshuffle the deck. Clinton has been pouring cold water on the hopes that the Fatah-Hamas dialogue might lead to a workable national unity government by insisting that such a government would only be acceptable if it met the pre-existing Quartet conditions [...]

This all seems stuck in a bit of time-warp. It ignores the two year history of Israeli and Western failure under the identical discourse and policy to deliver meaningful benefits to the Palestinian Authority or the West Bank. It ignores the reality of Hamas power in Gaza, and the reality of Fatah's limited capabilities and legitimacy (which were not enhanced, shall we say, by Abbas's performance during the Gaza war). And it ignores the promise of the dramatic moves towards Arab reconciliation and the accomplishment of a tentative Hamas-Fatah accord last week.

It's an open question whether or not there are partners for peace on the Israeli side, particularly with a new conservative government coming in and rocket fire still falling. But sticking with Fatah and isolating Hamas, AGAIN, makes no sense from a tactical perspective. We've seen this movie before. And it not only ignores the promise of the two movements' reconciliation, it threatens to poison it.

The effects of Clinton's signals may already be starting to be felt. Abd al-Bari Atwan, editor of the leading "resistance camp" newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi, suggests that yesterday's comments by Mahmoud Abbas suggest that he is being emboldened by Clinton's approach to already move away from the lines of the Cairo accord. Reports are already trickling in about the Hamas-Fatah committee meetings get bogged down. And Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal reportedly repeated yesterday warnings by other members of the Saudi leadership yesterday that the Arab peace initiative would not be on offer to Israel forever.

This feels like a badly bungled opportunity based on stale thinking. I would have preferred the approach of Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair John Kerry, who called for direct investment in Gaza, an honest assessment of the corrosive nature of Israeli settlements, and a need to deal with the realities on both sides.

...Kerry's been pretty good on Iran and direct engagement, too.

No One Could Have Anticipated...

That actions have consequences.

The Syrian government has broken relations with Baghdad. It has completely opened its border. This article in Al-Arabiya (Al-Arabiya is generally fairly reliable) says that the Syrians have reduced their forces on the border. That's NOT what I'm hearing from BOTH sides of the border. What I'm hearing from very trustworthy sources whom I've known for years is that the Syrians have completely withdrawn their forces from the border.

• No troops.
• No border guards.
• No police.

While the total number of foreign fighters in Iraq was never that large, they have often been deadly, particularly for US troops. And Syria was actually doing a fair job of tightening the border. But no more. Funny how air-dropping commando units into a sovereign nation can clarify the mind a bit.

So our reward for getting rid of maybe one tiny group of foreign agitators is a target on the backs of 140,000 US troops as well as untold numbers of Iraqis. That's why they call it blowback.

Heckuva job.

More International Crises While-U-Wait

Earlier today I mentioned all of our foreign policy triumphs. Here's another one.

U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as "serious aggression."

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area struck because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

This is directly analogous to the widening of the Vietnam War into Cambodia by Nixon. It's all disguised under the claim that we're saving the lives of the troops by cracking down on cross-border attacks, but this ends up to be far more destabilizing and dangerous for Americans around the world. Syria is a sovereign nation (precisely the kind that John McCain said would be off-limits to attacks, by the way, wonder what he thinks about this). It is entirely probable that their border has been porous and many foreign fighters have flowed through it. But disembarking inside their borders with elite assassination teams and shooting up a town goes well beyond a surgical strike. It's an act of war, plain and simple.

The last three months should be fun, as the Bush Administration deliberately sets traps for a potential Obama Presidency. This is one of them.

Appeasers!

Israel is negotiating with Syria.

After eight years of stalemate and periodic tension, Israel and Syria announced Wednesday that they have launched “serious and continuous” indirect peace talks aimed at ending one of the region’s longest-running disputes.

In identical statements issued from Damascus and Jerusalem, the rival neighbors said that they are taking part in indirect negotiations with Turkish diplomats serving as mediators.

“The two sides stated their intention to conduct these talks in good faith and with an open mind,” according to the statement. “They decided to pursue the dialogue between them in a serious and continuous way, in order to achieve the goal of comprehensive peace.”

If successful, the talks could lead to a broader shift in regional dynamics by returning the Golan Heights to Syria, cutting off critical support for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, and diminishing the influence of Iran in the region.

Yes, apparently talking to enemies can do all of that. Syria has always been the wild-card in the Middle East, wanting to get out from the shadow of Iran and assert themselves independently, and also rationally believing that the return of the Golan Heights is a satisfactory trade for ending the cycle of violence. Israel doesn't need additional enemies and wants to stop the flow of materials to Hezbollah. So both sides are acting in their own interests to forge a compromise.

That's called diplomacy. And it may be a foreign concept to George Bush and John McCain, but it's certainly not inside Israel, where the range of attitudes about negotiation are far broader than what you would expect if you've been fed on a steady diet of articles from Commentary and Fox News.

There are some Jews who would be made anxious by Mr. Obama even if he changed his first name to Baruch and had his bar mitzvah on Masada. But after speaking with him it struck me that, by the standards of rhetorical correctness maintained by such groups as the Conference of Presidents and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak. (To say nothing of John McCain and President George W. Bush, who spoke to the Knesset last week about external threats to Israel’s safety but made no mention of the country’s missteps.)

This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that the next president be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state. Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left.

And the best way to bring about the birth of a Palestinian state is to reverse — not merely halt, but reverse — the West Bank settlement project. The dismantling of settlements is the one step that would buttress the dwindling band of Palestinian moderates in their struggle against the fundamentalists of Hamas.

The myopia in the neoconservative community when it comes to Israel is so destructive to that nation's survival. A binational Arab-Israeli state is untenable. A moderate Palestinian state in the West Bank is the only viable solution. And ending the settlement project is the only path to peace, along with a negotiated settlement on a two-state solution.

This type of negotiation is treachery in the neocon circles. But the track record for their worldview is grim.

The United States really only has two experiences with a sustained effort at the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy. One would be our effort to deny recognition to Communist China during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. This, it's generally acknowledged, was a strategic fiasco that denied us the opportunity to gain leverage vis-à-vis the Soviet Union [...] The other is our fifty year effort to starve the people of Cuba into rebelling against Fidel Castro. McCain actually defends continuing this policy, but everyone with a functioning brain understands that it's been a ludicrous failure. So that's the path Bush has been taking with Syria and Iran and used to take with North Korea. McCain wants to keep on taking it, put North Korea back under the interdict, and perhaps add Russia to the disfavored list. Like McCain's apparent belief that it would be better if we'd spent another decade or two fighting in Vietnam, it really calls into question whether he has any understanding of what he's talking about.

Of course, it's easier to shout words divorced from their meaning like "appeasement!" and run against Democrats by saying they will ruin society and give in to terrorists. That used to be a decent political strategy, but as a fundamental policy doctrine it's disastrous and the consequences are grave.

P.S. Lebanon's government has made some sort of deal with Hezbollah. More appeasers.

Most Horrible Dictator In World History Loses Ground in Local Bi-Elections

Conservatives have convinced the modern press that every country outside of America doesn't have a legitimate democracy, and that every elected President has the supreme dictatorial powers that George Bush thinks he has. A perfect example is the Presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which has always been less powerful than warmongers suggest, and is subject to the same internal political struggles as any other country where voting takes place. This is especially true because, unlike in somewhere like Zimbabwe, the so-called "dictator" doesn't actually run the government or the military which could be used to suppress the vote:

Conservatives consolidated control of Iran's legislature in run-off elections but opponents of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gained strength, according to final results Saturday.

The results indicate that the hard-line leader is growing increasingly vulnerable ahead of a bid for re-election next year.

The conservative majority in the 290-seat parliament is divided between supporters of Ahmadinejad and opponents who say he has mishandled a nuclear standoff with the West and concentrated too much on fiery, anti-U.S. rhetoric while neglecting the economy.

The Supreme Leader barred most of the reformists from running and they STILL won more seats than in the previous legislature. Ahmadinejad has no majority, and a crumbling economy. There are certainly concerns about Iran's electoral freedom, but that has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad. If anything, he's used as a shield for the Supreme Council's disqualification of the reformists.

Our Iran policy is predicated on this deliberate misinterpretation of Iranian politics. Perhaps for this reason the warhawks moved on to Syria this week, though that story appears to also be full of holes. Or maybe the change in emphasis is to divert away from the fact that Iran is backing the Iraqi government we practically installed as a way to consolidate their gains in the region.

Bush, Israel putting Iran options on the table

As if on cue after the suspicious incident with Iranian gunships, President Bush, on his first visit to Israel of his entire Presidency, will be briefed on attack options from Israeli security officials.

Israel security officials are set to brief President Bush on their "Iran file" regarding the country's alleged nuclear weapons program "and how it could be destroyed - when he begins a tour of the Middle East in Jerusalem this week," the UK Times Uzi Mahnaimi reported Sunday.

"Ehud Barak, the defence minister, is said to want to convince him that an Israeli military strike against uranium enrichment facilities in Iran would be feasible if diplomatic efforts failed to halt nuclear operations," the paper added. "A range of military options has been prepared."

Of course, the Israeli (as well as the American) military establishment has attack options for a range of nations. It is said that the Pentagon has plans for attacking Canada housed somewhere. But what's notable here is that Bush is getting a personal briefing on Israeli intelligence about Iran's nuclear ambitions, after his own country's NIE revealed that Iran abandoned their nuclear program in 2003. Since then, Israel has been denying the NIE vociferously, believing that Iran restarted the program.

Now, even this report admits that Israel "does not have any evidence which could turn the tables on a recent US intelligence report which concluded that Iran has stopped developing nuclear weapons." Which is why they're focusing on uranium enrichment, an element brought up by any number of neocons in the wake of the NIE.

"While security officials are reluctant to reveal all their intelligence, fearing that leaks could jeopardise [sic] the element of surprise in any future attack, they are expected to present the president with fresh details of Iran’s enrichment of uranium - which could be used for civil or military purposes - and the development of missiles that could carry nuclear warheads," Mahnaimi wrote.

There's no doubt that Bush still wants to label Iran as a threat that needs to be dealt with before the end of his term. He desperately wants to remain relevant as his agenda gets swamped by the Presidential race. He wants to update NCLB, he wants to make his tax cuts permanent and he wants to get amnesty for the phone companies for breaking the law and supporting his illegal spying program. The first two of these are going nowhere; the third, we're going to have to fight like hell. But legitimately, Bush only gets back to the front page in a foreign policy emergency. Whether or not he creates it is of no consequence.

See also this bizarre report which claims that Syria was actually building a plutonium processing plant to assemble the bomb when it was attacked by Israel. One wonders where the plutonium went after the attack, then.

The point is that this Administration is looking for any impetus for war with Iran. If they can't cook the intelligence over here, they can certainly try to do so over in Israel. The timing of this incident in the Straits of Hormuz, combined with Bush's visit, is all too obvious.

World War III Declared

Not with a bang, but a whimper from the worst President ever.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he had warned world leaders they must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons "if you're interested in avoiding World War III."

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said at a White House press conference after Russia cautioned against military action against Tehran's supect atomic program.

"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

This is one of those Big Lies that's almost impossible to refute. First of all, a mid-sized country with severely limited offensive military capability is not a candidate for World War (unless you count Russia in that mix). Second, Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. Third, he never actually said that Israel must be "wiped off the map." Fourth, Israel is not the 51st state, and is eminently capable of taking care of themselves, as we've seen recently (even if the Syrian airstrike may have taken out the scourge of Russian anti-aircraft batteries and not a nuclear facility). Fifth, and scariest, the goalposts have moved.

Note where Bush has placed the goalposts here. Not preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure what the significance of that switch is, but it seems significant.

Ygz updates to say that this has been stated policy for a while, yet it still seems significant. It was like how after the war, it suddenly went from Saddam having weapons to having weapons programs, and the next week I think it was he had a weapons book. "You can't let a madman have a weapons book! What if he reads it?"

Under the standards laid out in this press conference, World War III or VIII or XIV or whatever the warbloggers have chosen this time is inevitable. Iran is in the midst of building centifuges for what they say is peaceful civilian nuclear technology. In Bush's world that is already cause enough for war. Hell, staying relevant might be reason enough for an attack, in his mind. Maybe he'll realize that using the veto pen isn't all it's cracked up to be, and he'd feel better hopping into the flight suit with the codpiece again.

This is insanity and now is the time for the Congress to step up and do everything in their power to stop this man. Unfortunately, on national security issues they have shown themselves to be impotent beyond all reason. Maybe they AREN'T interested in preventing World War III.

Self-Defense Apparently Now Unaceptable

Today Iran announced its intention to defend itself if attacked. Can you really not say that unless you're the United States?

The deputy commander of Iran's air force said Wednesday that plans have been drawn up to bomb Israel if the Jewish state attacks Iran, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

The announcement came amid rising tensions in the region, with the United States calling for a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program and Israeli planes having recently overflown, and perhaps even attacked, Iranian ally Syria [...]

White House press secretary Dana Perino called Alavi's comment "unhelpful."

"It is not constructive and it almost seems provocative," she said. "Israel doesn't seek a war with its neighbors. And we all are seeking, under the U.N. Security Council resolutions, for Iran to comply with its obligations."

I wonder why Iran is so touchy? The US keeps blaming them for everything that goes wrong in Iraq, a prominent Senator last week openly asked a commanding general if it was time to infiltrate their territory, British troops have massed along the border... sheesh, you'd think we were deliberately trying to start a war or something! How could they get such a mistaken notion?

And then there's this Israeli airstrike on Syria. Now, the claim by the wingnut base is that Syria and North Korea were in a pact where the North Koreans were dumping the nuclear material in Damascus that they were supposed to remove as part of nonproliferation negotiations. The Israelis got wind of it and took the material out. Then there are corollaries that Turkey provided the intel and that Syria and Iran coordinated in a botched missile experiment that has left dozens dead.

This is mythology, as Joseph Cirincione notes, and it's designed to deliberately blur the differences between all of these states and make a throwback to the old "Axis of Evil" days.

This story is nonsense. The Washington Post story should have been headlined "White House Officials Try to Push North Korea-Syria Connection." This is a political story, not a threat story. The mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from the run-up to war in Iraq. It is a sad commentary on how selective leaks from administration officials who have repeatedly misled the press are still treated as if they were absolute truth.

Once again, this appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted "intelligence" to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda. If this sounds like the run-up to the war in Iraq, it should. This time it appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement. Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria.

And now, from the same bullies and hawks that brought you those fictions comes this idea that Iran asserting the right to defend themselves and make contingency plans in the event of attack, as all nations on Earth do, is somehow belligerent and provocative. This is almost certainly coming from hard-right Likudnik groups like AIPAC, who will enlist all of their allies to ensure unanimity among both parties on anything regarding Israel, despite the fact that, as Rep. Moran says at the link, they don't represent mainstream Jewish-American opinion whatsoever. So the clueless media will parrot this line that "Iran wants to attack Israel!!!" when it's really "Iran Announces They Will Defend Themselves If Israel Attacks." If you want to see belligerence, I'd invite you to read Bernard Kouchner's comments.

The process in the UN against Iran should go forward, though the inspections process should be allowed to go forward without disturbance, and I do agree with General Abizaid that the world can live with a nuclear Iran through threat deterrance. But let's not drop our handkerchiefs because another country asserts the right to self-defense. After all, shouldn't we be far more concerned that wealthy Saudis are still bankrolling Al Qaeda and the ruling sheikhs aren't doing anything about it?

World Report

Because why not?

• So Bin Laden's going to preview the new Al Qaeda fall season with a taped message. Judging from the photo, he dyes his beard; is that part of the mores of the traditional Wahhabist caliphate? Aside from wetting the pants of a few insaneosphere residents, I'm pretty sure nothing he has to say makes a lick of difference. I'm sure the media will somehow turn this into a "win for the GOP," that the most wanted man in the world who killed 3,000 Americans on a Republican Administration's watch is still alive 6 years later. Just remember: EVERYTHING is good for the GOP. That's why they're doing so well these days!

• I remember hearing at some point a few months back a bit of media chatter that "Israel and Syria are going to war this summer because... just because." Didn't think much about it until this story today that Syria claims to have repelled Israeli warplanes that actually dropped munitions. Israel won't comment. Did they violate Syrian airspace to get to Syria, or to get a couple countries over to Tehran?

• Three Marine officers were censured for their failure to investigate the massacre of 24 civilians in Haditha in 2005. Their military careers are effectively over. Murder charges in this case have been dropped against two of the men mainly because of the byzantine military justice system and code of conduct IMO.

• Here's a nice story: airstrikes in Baghdad killed 14 civilians while they were sleeping. Read to me in the counterinsurgency manual where a key component is a massive bombing campaign. This is the great untold story of this escalation; we're dropping a tremendous amount of ordnance over there. You cannot win hearts and minds by substituting bombs for boots on the ground. We don't have enough troops for the mission (not that the mission is winnable), so we're trying to compensate with airstrikes. It just stirs up more anger.

• German authorities are looking for a dozen more suspects in the foiled terror plot against various facilities. Good for diligent police work. Meanwhile the US Embassy in Nigeria is under alert of attack. The world is still dangerous, made more so by our debacle in Iraq and our inattention to extremism around the world.

• Fred Hiatt is a complete idiot, trying to save his own reputation by attacking the good name of Mohammed El Baradei, who happened to be right about Iraq and is right about Iran. It's those who have been completely wrong who are trying to deflect from their own mistakes by beating the drums for yet another war.

• We all hope for some better news from Iraq, we just don't see a lot to be that pleased about. But this is encouraging, and it's typical that it had nothing to do with the Americans. Top Parliament leaders met in Finland with representatives from South Africa and Northern Ireland, to discuss the best practices for real reconciliation. It suggests that this isn't about the Iraqis "getting their act together," it's about removing the crush of the American presence so that the Iraqis can figure this out for themselves. I'm mindful that this doesn't mean the Shiites and Sunnis will immediately become best of friends; the work done in Northern Ireland took decades. But they did take the steps toward a resolution here, even if they are baby steps. Note that South Africa and Northern Ireland are not occupied nations. And maybe we don't need to return power to CIA-and-lobbyist-backed thug who will destroy democracy in order to save it.

• 50 killed in campaigning for Guatemala's national election, and it's not until this weekend. Political rivals are shooting each other and a lot of candidates are backed by drug lords. This is pretty normal practice in a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world. As long as our goal is to spread freedom and democracy, could we be bothered to give a hand here?

• Riverbend has left Baghdad. She was an honest voice among the madness, and she will be missed, but she is certainly safer in Syria.

• And finally, a sketch comedy group in Australia managed to get through two security checkpoints and pretty darn close to George W. Bush with a guy dressed up as Osama bin Laden.

The group staged a faux motorcade, pretending to be the delegation of Canada with one of the comedians dressed as bin Laden, and made it past two police checkpoints before being stopped, reported The Hill.

Cast members hired two motorcycles and three large cars on which they put Canadian flags. Police waved the motorcade through two checkpoints before pulling it over near the Intercontinental Hotel where Mr. Bush is staying.

Australia: better comedy than Yahoo Serious and Crocodile Dundee! Who knew?

Rabbit Ears

It's definitely a trying situation for Democrats. Any time they say they support the troops the Bush Administration makes it seem like they support the policy. Anytime they say they don't support the policy the Bush Administration makes it sound like they don't suport the troops.

Which is a tough situation. And yet 70% of the American people, with little help from the media or even Democrats, support the basic policy of ending the occupation of Iraq. So maybe the key here is to stop listening to what the Bush Administration is saying about you and carry out the policy that brings us closest to that goal. Stop playing chess and start playing checkers.

I mean, Rep. McNerney, this is nice and all...

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

NOTHING is acceptable to them. They want to play out the string and keep Americans dying in Iraq indefinitely. It's nice to want to negotiate to find the pony, but the only thing that will come out of it is getting 3 Republicans to agree to a withdrawal 7 years from now. But only if we invade Syria first.

This focus on Prime Minister Maliki is similarly absurd. You think some other Prime Minister is going to unify the country? Who? Iyad Allawi? Didn't we already try that? Meanwhile, Levin acknowledges progress on the military front after a hasty two-day trip, getting spun about the utility of Iraqi forces. So this is what to expect in September.

Senate Democrats largely will not challenge, but rather will embrace and celebrate, the notion that The Surge Is Working and that we are making "military progress," whatever that might mean this month. To "oppose the war," they instead will follow the strategy Hillary Clinton has adopted this year -- namely, blaming the Iraqis for failing to take advantage of the great opportunities we are creating for them. Levin's demand that Prime Minister Maliki be replaced is designed to accomplish exactly that. Democrats are afraid to challenge the U.S. military's claims that we are Winning, and are even afraid to oppose the Surge, so instead, they will take the safest course -- heaping the blame on the Iraqi government and demanding that they improve [...]

Iraq is so disintegrated, so ethnically cleansed, so broken that, as (Nir) Rosen points out, it does not really exist as an entity any longer:

Iraq has been changed irrevocably, I think. I don't think Iraq even -- you can say it exists anymore. There has been a very effective, systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad, of Shias --from areas that are now mostly Shia. . . . And Baghdad is now firmly in the hands of sectarian Shiite militias, and they're never going to let it go.

Rosen reports that the number of externally displaced Iraqis is now close to 3 million -- most of them Sunnis, representing a sizable portion of the Iraqi Sunni population which, in turn, further ensures Shiite sectarian militia control of most of the country. Always obscured by the exciting debate over whether we are "winning" is what happens if we "win" -- the installation of an Iran-and-Syria-friendly Shiite "government" surrounded by an ethnically divided country armed and ruled by sectarian militias loyal to a whole variety of Middle East actors. In light of all of that, Sen. Levin's claim of "military progress" is just incoherent.

Democrats have put themselves in a horrible spot. There is going to be a drawdown of troops, mainly because of physical realities of manpower, that they won't be responsible for, and it will be seen by the media as "piling on" to suggest it's insufficient, especially after they've determined that "the surge is working." The 100,000 or so contractors will stay, of course, there will be no talk of them. And there may be an internal coup that will be used as a rhetorical weapon by the White House ("We need to give the new Prime Minister time to succeed"). None of this will have any bearing on Iraq's inevitable slide into absolute chaos.

Things that the Democrats could do: highlight reports like this in the same way they're highlighted against you...

In Baghdad, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker was downbeat in his assessment of Maliki's ability to end sectarian warfare between the Shiites and Sunni Arabs. He called progress toward national reconciliation "extremely disappointing" and said Maliki and other members of his government needed to reach compromises to help quell the bloodshed.

"We do expect results, as do the Iraqi people, and our support is not a blank check," Crocker told journalists.

Speak absolutely clearly that the surge is a failure.

“No matter how brilliantly and bravely our troops and their commanders perform — and they have performed brilliantly and bravely — they cannot and should not bear the responsibility of resolving grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war,” Mr. Obama said. “No military surge, no matter how brilliantly performed, can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region.”

Bird-dog the other side to get them on the record about Bush's war:

But, unlike most lawmakers who return from the war-torn country, Voinovich is refusing to offer an assessment of what he saw on his trip. “He’s not going to get into that right now — what’s working, what’s not working, is the surge working,” his spokesman, Chris Paulitz, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “He’s not really interested in a soundbite response.”

And be extremely firm in calling for a specific end to this war, asking Republicans for their support but also firmly explaining to them the consequences of their opposition; namely, the end of their political careers.

And quit listening to every word the Republicans say on this thing.

Who's Kidding Who on "Talks With Iran."

So the US and Iran held formal talks yesterday for the first time in 27 years, but there's this manner in which they're holding them that assures that no real progress will arise.

In briefings to reporters afterward, the chief negotiators -- U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi -- said the talks focused solely on Iraq and did not stray into the contentious areas of Iran's nuclear program or the recent detentions of four Iranian American citizens by Tehran.

There is no way to hold credible talks with Iran that are so narrowly focused and expect them to reach any kind of agreement. Matthew Yglesias explains.

US-Iranian enmity isn't rooted in disagreements about Iraq. Rather, we find it difficult to cooperate with the Iranians with regard to Iraq precisely because the overall state of US-Iranian relations is so poor.

Insofar as our goals in the Middle East include overthrowing the regime in Teheran and, short of regime change, doing everything possible to destroy the Iranian economy then, naturally enough, the Iranians are going to seek to thwart our goals. After all, they hardly have any choice of the matter.

Iraq can be a launching pad for negotiations, a way to build consensus and trust so that the other issues can be brought into play, but it can't be the only issue. Otherwise the cries of "Iran would never help the United States" become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is slightly different with Syria, although you can see it play out similarly in the context of the Lebanon issue. You can't compartmentalize this kind of diplomacy.

Rewarding Bad Behavior

Apparently, Condi Rice hates America.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said her meeting with the Syrian foreign minister, the first high-level talks in years between the United States and Syria, was "professional" and focused on how to improve security in Iraq.

Rice met with Walid Moallem for a half-hour on the sidelines of a two-day conference about Iraq's future, taking the opportunity to air U.S. concerns about Syria's notoriously porous border with its neighbor.

"I didn't lecture him and he didn't lecture me," Rice said afterward. "I would say it was professional. It was businesslike."

Rice obviously doesn't understand the nature of the threat we face. She's a traitor to her country for rewarding bad behavior by the Syrian government. How dare she talk to our enemies. Condi Rice should be prosecuted under whatever law we can find for subverting our foreign policy.

Oh wait, that's Nancy Pelosi.

(By the way, Tony Snow is bobbing and weaving like crazy on this issue at the press briefing today.)

Darrell Issa Hearts Terrorists!!1!!!

This Pelosi-to-Syria story has gotten totally ridiculous. Now we have a Republican lawmaker, Darrell Issa of California, not only meeting with the Syrian leader, but criticizing the Administration in the same breath:

Commenting on Bush’s criticism, California Republican Darrell Issa said the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.

“That’s an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies,” Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and his foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem.

Republican leaders are now actually arguing that it's OK for Congressmen in their Party to visit Syria but not Pelosi because she's... because she's a Democrat.

They're actually going ahead and arguing this now. They're making the It's OK If You're A Republican (IOKIYAR) theory into OFFICIAL STATED POLICY.

Wow. Just wow. Sometimes it doesn't pay to blog - this stuff is so self-evident.

Shadow Government

Since when did Suzanne Malveaux become Karl Rove's sock puppet? She's spent the past several days helming CNN's Situation Room, during which she has called Nancy Pelosi "the most controversial speaker yet," asserted that opposing the war is a bad strategy for Democrats, and then busted out with these greatest hits:

Here she is in a comfy chat with shit-canned former UN ambassador John Bolton about Speaker Pelosi's trip to Israel and Syria:

MALVEAUX: Do you think that this also perhaps portends to something that might happen in the future? I'm being somewhat flip. But, you know, Syria today, Iran tomorrow, I mean, where does it end?

BOLTON: I think that's part of the problem.

Additional comments to Paul Begala on Speaker Pelosi's trip:

MALVEAUX: Now, Paul, she has no standing officially to do any negotiations here. She is on her own. I mean, if Syria was serious about peace, they would be reaching out to Secretary Rice or the president. Why isn't this any more than a political theater? What can she accomplish?

For a moment, let's dispense with the notion that these comments are right out of an RNC fax list (which they are). It's no surprise that Malveaux doesn't read the foreign press, but it appears that Pelosi actually is accomplishing something in Damascus, at the behest of the Israeli government, who clearly trusts her more than Condi Rice:

Israel's political and military leadership has been preparing in recent weeks for the possibility of a Syrian attack on the Golan Heights that will start as a result of a "miscalculation" on the part of the Syrians, who may assume that Israel intends to attack them.

Israel, however, has delivered a calming message, and has no plans to attack its northern neighbor.

According to information Israel received, the Syrians are concerned that the United States will carry out an attack against Iran's nuclear installations in the summer, and in parallel Israel would strike Syria and Lebanon.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who visited IDF forces in the North last week, heard an intelligence assessment and was informed of the dangers of a Syrian "miscalculation."

Following his visit to the forces in the field, a decision was made to publicly address the concerns of a possible deterioration with the Syrians, and to send a message that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran.

The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

"We hope the message will be understood," political sources in Israel said yesterday. "The question is whether Assad is looking for an excuse ... so that he can carry out an attack against Israel in the summer, or whether this is a mistaken assessment."

So when the Israelis are worries about the wrong message being sent to Syria, to relieve the tension they turn to... the Speaker of the House of Representatives, because the State Department is in such disarray and the chief executive is such a belligerent cowboy that they simply can't trust him. This is perhaps the biggest indictment of the Bush Administration yet, that the rest of the world would rather deal with a shadow government at this point than these fools.

And all the insaneosphere gets out of this is yelling about Pelosi wearing a scarf on her head. It's amazing that there are literally two separate realities going on in this country.

They Won't Even Get A Nightline Out Of This

I don't know what this Iran-Britain crisis proved, as the Brits were released today. Other than diplomacy and negotiation works (and apparently Syria was a mediator). Iran probably feels that they humiliated the West and proved their point, Britain probably feels they successfully managed a global incident without any bloodshed.

Well, OK. And maybe this will stop an accidental war in the Middle East and show that crises can be averted. But I pretty much don't see how something that inflamed tensions and prolonged animosities really helped matters.

Syriana

Here's the thing: everybody and their mother knew that Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria wasn't special. John Kerry and Chris Dodd and REPUBLICAN Arlen Specter were there late last year. There's a GOP House delegation there right now. The only way you could possibly parrot the White House spin that Pelosi's trip is wrong is if you set your brain on "marinate."

And that's where we're at with today's media. Josh Marshall is correct.

Unless I'm a lot more dense than I think, neither of those was an answer. So it stands: Republicans visiting Damascus, Okay. Democrats, visiting, Hurts America.

As Greg notes here, the president said today that he doesn't like Republicans or Democrats visiting Syria. But he only gets his press office to make a stink when it's a Democrat.

Enough on this one. A bunch of reporters got played on this one. And now they're too embarrassed to retrace their steps.

It's really not enough to claim that news is made because of what the White House says. That's stenography. You can actually do the extra step, and consider whether or not the stupid crap they say is news. A lot of the time, it's not. And such a determination is not suggestive of bias, it's suggestive of journalism.

UPDATE: This picture of Pelosi in a hijab is really going to set the authoritarian Islamo-haters on the right ablaze. Apparently respect for culture should never be abided.

A Group of Paranoids

("Time is running out," said [John Birch Society founder Robert] Welch in 1951. "Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack").

-Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, 1964

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (cf Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

- Bernard Lewis, "August 22," The National Review, 2006

Given the belligerent talk over Iran in recent days, I thought it should be known that to this breed of far-right authoritarian fearmongers, the next attack is ALWAYS around the corner. The enemy is ALWAYS moments away from a bomb, or an attack, or whatever. We ALWAYS have to get them before they get us. This is core wingnut DNA stuff, and it has been for 50 years or more.

And this is why any attempt to negotiate or speak with whoever they determine is "the enemy" can never happen. Because peace is unacceptable. And even it were, money trumps peace.



The above link about Condi Rice, Israel and Syria is really shocking. The US put a stop to even introductory talks between Jerusalem and Damascus. Yes, we deliberately shut down peace negotiations between two foreign entities. Mainly because it would hurt our position against Syria. Because, I guess, they're minutes away from attacking us.

This is the deranged, paranoid mind that is currently running the country. Words like "weakness" and phrases like "sending the wrong message" rule the discourse. And they're sending us headlong into another catastrophe. Help to stop the Iran war by clicking on the link.