Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Iraq Betrayed
One of the dirtiest secrets in Washington is that in the narrowly constrained worldview of the "intelligence" and "security" communities, a single party,
single leader, totalitarian military dictatorship is the ideal regime for Iraq. (I won't address the historical reasons for this just yet; suffice it to say that the Kissinger-Nixon school of anti-democratic Realpolitik has deep roots.) The problem is that all those elements---which form the synthesis of the CIA ur-word or echt-word, "stability"----already exist in Iraq. Trouble is that the dictator is no longer an obedient lapdog, no longer "our monster," but a monster in his own right.
Kanan Makiya, a brave Iraqi dissident intellectual who could very well be the first elected president of Iraq, has reason to believe that the US is prepared to install Saddamism without Saddam.
Through decades of blunders and miscalculations, the US seems finally to be on the right side of history in the Middle East. If the administration were to betray its promise of liberation to the Iraqi people (yet again! though this time the committment has reached a critical mass), the consequences would likely be reckoned in oceans of blood, with American proxies fighting against the various democratic coalitions of Iraq. That must not be allowed to happen.
One of the dirtiest secrets in Washington is that in the narrowly constrained worldview of the "intelligence" and "security" communities, a single party,
single leader, totalitarian military dictatorship is the ideal regime for Iraq. (I won't address the historical reasons for this just yet; suffice it to say that the Kissinger-Nixon school of anti-democratic Realpolitik has deep roots.) The problem is that all those elements---which form the synthesis of the CIA ur-word or echt-word, "stability"----already exist in Iraq. Trouble is that the dictator is no longer an obedient lapdog, no longer "our monster," but a monster in his own right.
Kanan Makiya, a brave Iraqi dissident intellectual who could very well be the first elected president of Iraq, has reason to believe that the US is prepared to install Saddamism without Saddam.
Through decades of blunders and miscalculations, the US seems finally to be on the right side of history in the Middle East. If the administration were to betray its promise of liberation to the Iraqi people (yet again! though this time the committment has reached a critical mass), the consequences would likely be reckoned in oceans of blood, with American proxies fighting against the various democratic coalitions of Iraq. That must not be allowed to happen.
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
Iraq and Old Europe
Damning scenario, evidence, and report by Mr. Hamza, former director of Iraq's nuclear weapons program (via opinionjournal) regarding German, French, and Russian weapons and technology sales to Iraq at exorbitant prices.
"Saddam's policy of squandering Iraq's resources by paying outrageous prices to friendly states seems to be paying off. The irresponsibility and lack of morality these states are displaying in trying to keep the world's worst butcher in power is perhaps indicative of a new world order. It is a world of winks and nods to emerging rogue states--for a price. It remains for the U.S. and its allies to institute an opposing order in which no price is high enough for dictators like Saddam to thrive." - The Inspections Dodge, Khidhir Hamza
Damning scenario, evidence, and report by Mr. Hamza, former director of Iraq's nuclear weapons program (via opinionjournal) regarding German, French, and Russian weapons and technology sales to Iraq at exorbitant prices.
"Saddam's policy of squandering Iraq's resources by paying outrageous prices to friendly states seems to be paying off. The irresponsibility and lack of morality these states are displaying in trying to keep the world's worst butcher in power is perhaps indicative of a new world order. It is a world of winks and nods to emerging rogue states--for a price. It remains for the U.S. and its allies to institute an opposing order in which no price is high enough for dictators like Saddam to thrive." - The Inspections Dodge, Khidhir Hamza
Sunday, February 09, 2003
In response to George Tenet's letter to Senator Bob Graham, outlining Iraq's links with Al Qaeda, David Corn from The Nation writes:
"A link between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime would indeed be troubling--even frightening--and require a response. But the nature of the response should depend on the nature of the connection. Tenet's 'points' do not present enough information on which to render a judgment. When did these 'senior level contacts' occur and what did they concern? When were the discussions regarding safe havens and reciprocal nonaggression? If all this happened ten years ago and led to no agreements or actions, that would not be reason for attacking Iraq. And what does it mean that al Qaeda members are in Iraq? Al Qaeda has a presence in 60 countries, including the United States. If the CIA knows al Qaeda leaders 'sought contacts in Iraq' in order to obtain weapons of mass destruction--and can share that tidbit with the public--can it say whether it knows when this transpired and whether the al Qaeda members succeeded in establishing these contacts? If so, who were their Iraqi contacts? Officials in Saddam's government? As for the training Iraq provided to al Qaeda members, it would be important to understand when that occurred, who supplied the training, and how extensive it was. Given the track record of his CIA, it is difficult not to suspect Tenet was being selective in his release of these 'points.'"
Corn clearly cannot grasp the significance of the evidence as reported by the State Department, CIA, and Jeffrey Goldberg's New Yorker piece. Although Corn's article was written in October of 2002, those doubting the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda are still mired in this mental state of denial. How much evidence does the CIA need to provide? Al Qaeda is an anti-American terrorist organization. Saddam's regime also hates America. If there are signs of cooperation, what else can this mean but terrorism aimed at America?
"A link between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime would indeed be troubling--even frightening--and require a response. But the nature of the response should depend on the nature of the connection. Tenet's 'points' do not present enough information on which to render a judgment. When did these 'senior level contacts' occur and what did they concern? When were the discussions regarding safe havens and reciprocal nonaggression? If all this happened ten years ago and led to no agreements or actions, that would not be reason for attacking Iraq. And what does it mean that al Qaeda members are in Iraq? Al Qaeda has a presence in 60 countries, including the United States. If the CIA knows al Qaeda leaders 'sought contacts in Iraq' in order to obtain weapons of mass destruction--and can share that tidbit with the public--can it say whether it knows when this transpired and whether the al Qaeda members succeeded in establishing these contacts? If so, who were their Iraqi contacts? Officials in Saddam's government? As for the training Iraq provided to al Qaeda members, it would be important to understand when that occurred, who supplied the training, and how extensive it was. Given the track record of his CIA, it is difficult not to suspect Tenet was being selective in his release of these 'points.'"
Corn clearly cannot grasp the significance of the evidence as reported by the State Department, CIA, and Jeffrey Goldberg's New Yorker piece. Although Corn's article was written in October of 2002, those doubting the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda are still mired in this mental state of denial. How much evidence does the CIA need to provide? Al Qaeda is an anti-American terrorist organization. Saddam's regime also hates America. If there are signs of cooperation, what else can this mean but terrorism aimed at America?
Saturday, February 08, 2003
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
The Honorable Left
Not much left, I know. Anyway, there's always this:
"And now Gore and wife [wife of Clinton] say that Bush is picking a fight with Iraq? Fuck them. I really mean it. I have nothing but contempt for them. We are risking people’s lives, and all they can be is flippant. There are people who are against the war, who are very serious and have offered some very good criticisms. But not Gore, and not the senator from New York, either. The thought of these people in power frightens me."
Who else, but Christopher Hitchens
Enjoy.
Not much left, I know. Anyway, there's always this:
"And now Gore and wife [wife of Clinton] say that Bush is picking a fight with Iraq? Fuck them. I really mean it. I have nothing but contempt for them. We are risking people’s lives, and all they can be is flippant. There are people who are against the war, who are very serious and have offered some very good criticisms. But not Gore, and not the senator from New York, either. The thought of these people in power frightens me."
Who else, but Christopher Hitchens
Enjoy.
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)