Rogue State/Failed State Conundrum

Prior to September 11, and even afterwards, Bush administration foreign affairs concern has focused on nations, and rogue states in specific. If you look at our activities prior to 9/11 and immediately after, we concerned ourselves with nations like Iraq, Iran and North Korea, in part, because they made up an actual target that we could aim at. Afghanistan was a much more difficult problem, in that it was hardly ruled from the center and we could exert little or no influence over the countryside, even when we could influence the Taliban who ran the country.

Our invasion of Afghanistan, and our subsequent actions there, have placed a premium on sovereignty and pututative control over the country, rather than actual control over all places within the country. This is because we did Afghanistan on the cheap, never really putting ourselves in there full force with the necessary troops to control the whole country. As a result, much of the countryside is under control of war lords with only tenuous loyalty to the central government. In many places, ex-Taliban and Al Qaida figures exert great influence. In other words, Afghanistan, while putatively an ally, is on the edge of becoming a failed state again. This appears to be of little concern to the Bush Administration.

Iraq was, by all accounts, a rogue state. Under Hussein, Iraq seemed to have little regard for international agreements or other niceties. However, they were a coherent, controlled state. All parts answered to the center, and no one entered or exited the country without the explicit or implicit consent or understanding of Hussein (except, obviously, for those areas which were under International control, like the Kurdish north).

Iraq is now becoming a failed state. It is very likely that the result of these "elections" will be civil war. I used quotes because this is the most farcical democratic enterprise Iraq has seen in, well, I guess only a few years, since their referendum on Hussein which produced a 99.9% yes vote. In this case, voters do not even know most of the people they are voting for - that's kept confidential for security reasons - they don't know their platforms, because there are none, they don't know any policies, because there are none. This is essentially a popularity contest based on tribal and religious affiliation - hardly a harbinger of good things to come.

However, as it stands right now, Iraq is veering dangerously towards the status of another failed state. So, I have to ask you, which is worse. A rogue state that acts outside the bounds of civil society and rejects international standards in most of their actions, but which is at least controlled enough so that the center is in charge, or a failed state where all of the above bad things apply, except the country is an open and fertile ground for the breeding of future terrorists, where huge amounts of weapons can be used against us there, or smuggled out (easily) to be used against us here. The country could easily break into 3 parts, with the center facing bloody civil war and failed state status for decades to come.

Remember, the only country which was a real threat to the US in the last decade has been Afghanistan, and not because they had an overtly anti-American government, but because they had no government at all. Additionally, places like Somalia were a threat and breeding ground for Al Qaida because they were lawless places where Al Qaida could spawn. Therefore, it appears as if Iraq is becoming a greater threat, not less of a threat, due to our invasion. I can only see one solution.

We need to ensure that a strong leader who can unify the country and control his borders and population takes power there. Someone who may not be our friend, but we can convince him not to be our enemy. We need someone who will work with us against some of the other dangerous and bad actors in that neighborhood (like Iran, who is greedily licking their chops in anticipation of the Shia takeover of Iraq and subsequent subservience to Iran). In short, I have a proposal about who can do this.

Saddam Hussein.

We have our answer, we have our man, we even have him in custody and available for immediate use. Now all we have to do is act on it.

Social Security - The Democrats' Chance

Listening to some of the Sunday morning talk shows yesterday (thank god for XM radio, which has CSPAN Radio, and replays many of these shows without commercials Sunday night), I sensed that the Republicans are very scared about the prospect of Social Security "reform" being an issue that they take a major hit on at the mid-terms in 2006. Some were saying that they fear losing their majorities in both houses (although that seems impossible). On the other hand, Talking Points Memo continues to document the number of people in the so-called "Fainthearted Faction" of the Democratic Party (those willing to sell-out SS for some variation of the Bush plan). Meanwhile, Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly continues to show how secure SS really is, and what a fraud is being run by Bush, probably in the greater goal of actually destroying SS rather than "save" it.

Two thoughts. One, if this is the issue with legs in this country, while we are spending hundreds of billions on a fraudulent war, then it speaks very poorly of our country. Imagine, we just had our president reelected while all of this crap was going on, but, god no, you cut my benefits by a drop and I'm willing to drop the president and his party at a drop of a hat. Waste hundreds of billions so Bush could call himself a "war president," lie about weapons of mass destruction, engage in the wholesale destruction of all of our longstanding previous alliances, embarrass our country beyond belief by deciding that torture and indefinite detention of suspects is acceptable (after decrying it in the Soviet Union all these years), lose jobs for a term for the first time since Herbert Hoover, all of these things pale in comparison to a possible cut in retirement benefits. And Bush calls our country a generous nation?

Finally, if this issue is so toxic (it's not called the 3rd rail of American politics for nothing), whey aren't the Democrats going to war on the issue. They've dropped the ball on every conceivable issue up to now, especially the war and tax cuts, but supporting them in numbers large enough to call Bush's legislative successes "bi-partisan." Why not coalesce at this point and fight the political equivalent of a street to street battle against this, something most people seem predisposed to oppose in the first place. This should be the time and place where liberals re-discover their backbone, not where they give bipartisan cover to another idiotic Bush proposal.

New Poll - Americans (read - Religious Right Wing Americans) Favor Restricting Muslim Rights

If you think my collegue's post about Republicans being out of touch based on the University of Maryland poll was chilling, just check this one out. Lest you truly believe that right wing fundamentalists are in favor of "religion" (as in, be religious, any religion will do), check out this poll, as reported by Newsday. I don't know how I missed this one, but it certainly tells me nothing that I didn't viscerally believe before.

Apparently 1/2 of Americans favor restricting the rights of Muslims, including making them register with the Federal government. Now I'm sure that someone like Rehnquist, Scalia or Thomas could find some manner of showing this is constiutional, but let's face it, 1/2 of this country doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights, plain and simple. Ah, but let's look further into the numbers for the whole picture. Turns out that by a 2-1 margin, the people who believe this are religious Republicans. So, they don't believe in freedom of religion after all, the believe in the tyranny of their religion, with grudging tolerance to Jews like me, since we're part of the prophesy of the end of the world and are going to roast in hell anyways, and regardless, we don't proselytize like Muslims do. Therefore, we're a harmless little group that will be crushed someday, either by God at the end of days, or by the Holy American Empire headed by one of the later Bush administrations. As far as they're concerned, they'll give us Hollywood without a problem since they have Fox News to keep them happy.

Don't get me wrong, I've never had any illusions that this was true, but for so long after the McCarthy era, the end of segregation and Watergate, even Republicans felt the need to remain politically correct and not speak too loudly about their desire to split the races (and religions) back up, giving all but white, conservative Christians a 2nd tier role in out society. Now, with Bush firmly in charge of this country (by a whopping 3%), they feel no need to hold back on their feelings anymore.

That 50%, who support ending the Bill of Rights, that is the Republican majority. Something to be so proud of.

Thanks to Blogger Greg Stephens at New Zealand Politcal Comments for his post on the subject. Makes me think that New Zealand really is the place that right thinking Americans should be seeking political asylum.

Missile Defense Test Fails

Hey kids, what's that mushroom cloud doing over your city? Guess that missile defense system that the president spent your generation's education money on just failed. No harm trying, though, right?

Yeah, right, it only encourages nations to find technology that works even better, spurring an arms race that must be paid for somehow - usually by the export of technology to, ahem, unsavory people who may use it in a manner not easily deterred in bilateral state-to-state diplomacy (Al Qaeda, perhaps?).

So, the nothing ventured, nothing gained idea is actually way wrong. This attempt by us has probably already spurred Russia and China - at a minimum - the attempt to foil the system with even better technology on their part. Oh well, at least we're out of that annoying and burdensome Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that served us so poorly for the last 3 decades.

Have no fear, though, I'm quite sure Bush will hold a press conference tomorrow heralding the great success of missile defense, and holding it up alongside Iraq as among his administration's great accomplishments. And, our idiotic electorate, or at least the 70% who voted for Bush and still believe that Hussein had WMD, will just cheer right along. Boy, it's great to live a life unencumbered by facts.

How about Dems use a new language???

Alright, I'm following this whole hubbaloo about the failure of the military to adequately outfit our troops, or for that matter, our failure to send adequate numbers out there, like this is any big surprise. Talking Points Memo has a couple of blurbs about this and the "official" Congressional Republican response.

Two issues.

First of all, how is it that the Republicans have managed to bottle this issue up and not have it made an election year issue? It's been talked about for nearly 2 years now. There were stories dating back to the start of the war about the fact that families were sending body armor to their kids since it wasn't being provided by the military. That's unconscionable. Our failure to send enough troops to the fight has led to the trouble we're in now, and when General Shinseki pointed this out, he was forced out of the military.

Of course, none of this is by coincidence, in fact, it's by design. Donald Rumsfeld had been fighting for years to remake the military as a smaller, more lightly armed and mobile force. Since he took office he has been trying to remake the military in that fashion. We should give him full credit for succeeding. It's nice, of course, when the Republicans actually succeed at something they set out to do, it's just a pity that it so often ends up being the absolutely wrong thing to do. This has to be the most typical situation of this president, he sees the world as he wants it to be, not as it is, and acts accordingly. Simply put, believing is seeing, rather than the other way around.

Point number 2 is this: Why are the Dems calling for "hearings," and "heads to roll," and other language of a responsible, yet irrelevant opposition. It's time to call a spade a spade. The Republicans hate the military, they hate the soldiers in uniform. They love the uniform, the trappings of military and the power it entails, but they hate the soldiers actually doing the fighting. They aren't insensitive, they weren't unprepared, they don't care how many die because they have contempt for working Americans, whether they work at Walmart and want them to shoulder an ever greater share of our nation's burdens for less money and benefits to help lower the burden of the wealthiest, or whether they work in the military for even paltrier pay and less benefits. Only now, they want to put these people in danger because they just don't care, they are, in point - ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-SOLDIER, AND UNPATRIOTIC.

It's time we shouted this out from the highest rooftops, instead of speaking of them like they really care and just messed up. They don't care, and don't let the starting point of their arguments be that they do care, and how they messed up inadvertantly. Make them defend their patriotism on TV, radio and any other medium they appear. Let's put ads on TV about how they hate the working troops. It's time to stop fighting with kid's gloves.

Republicans showcase future of Social Security (failure)

According to the Washington Post, Bill Frist's investments intended for use in political ads, have lost significant money in the stockmarket in the last few years. I guess this shows what's likely to happen during any downturn to our social security benifits. They may not make much money as they're presently invested, but imagine our pensions going down the tubes like the NASDAQ has done over the last 4 years. Who will pay, who will suffer. My bet on both counts is few Republican leaders, and few heavy Republican donors. Read the article for more.

Our Actions in Guantanamo

The Red Cross contends that we are engaged in conduct tantamount to torture in Guantanamo Bay. Of course, this is no surprise to those who have actually concerned themselves with our conduct there. Fact of the matter is, we are hardly a light unto the nations right now, unless you want to count countries struggling with their own human rights problems like the Ukraine.

To be fair, we are only doing this to "outsiders," people who are actively engaged in a war against us (at least purportedly so, this is one of the big problems with conducting a war in this manner, you sweep up a bunch of innocents also and stick them in there, which only makes things worse). This does not, yet, involve use of these methods as a means of suppressing dissent in this country. Here's the rub, how long can we do this stuff, call them legitemate means in the fight against terrorism, before it gets extended to political dissenters in this country. We were already on that somewhat slippery slope with Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi when the Supreme Court put a minor skid to it (and Hamdi's been released as a result), but look at the rhetoric of some of the right in this country. They've effectively called millions of people traitors for opposing the president in a time of war. John Ashcroft famously claimed that those who oppose his actions in rounding up suspects give aid and comfort to the terrorists. What is that if not a call for a greater crackdown on political dissent.

Once the tactics have been legitemized, then the only barrier is that we need to extend the reach of targets we use those tactics against. What's first, jailing of political dissenters without trial or charges? Coercive questioning, torture, disappearances. We should not even be crawling near this slipperly slope, and yet, our government has no concern about where they are taking this.

Supreme Court Unfriendly to Medical Marijuana

Appropos to my post yesterday, it appears as if sanity in the area of drugs is still a ways off. Apparently, the US Supreme Court, so often a friend to right wing state's rights claims, is not so friendly to those claims coming from the Blue states. If you want to discriminate against minorities or disabled people, a state's rights defense will fly. If you want to have autonomy over your body then you are out of luck. The case hasn't been decided yet, but the NY Times seems to believe that the tenor of the debate left little doubt as to where the decision would fall.