Fun facts

There are the asserted knowns

In last Thursday's Vice Presidential debate, Democrat Joe Biden said "the history of the last 700 years" showed the Iraqi people could never get along with each other.

And then there are facts

After World War I, one-third of Baghdad was Jewish. After World War II, Jews served in the Iraqi cabinet, its Parliament, and on its High Court of Appeal.

"That speaks to a culture, that despite the images that dominate the headlines, was really quite civilised, sophisticated and cosmopolitan and multicultural well before that was a term that university professors and liberals like to use," Sabar [..] told IPS.

Ariel Sabar is the author of a book describing his father growing up in Northern Iraq, My Father's Paradise: A Son's Search for His Jewish Past in Northern Iraq. Life for Jews in Iraq turns brutal after 1948 and it certainly hasn't been a peaceful place since then but 700 years?

Afghanistan

What is frustrating about so much of the conversation about Afghanistan is the refusal to take into account the fact that actual people live in Afghanistan. And that how they have been effected by the US invasion might actually have an impact on the outcome of the US mission there. Since the early bombings from 50000 feet of wedding parties people have been warning of the effect of civilian casualties. But the idea that other people may not like their loved ones killed any more than we do doesn't seem to quite click. That people may not like to have their villages liberated by bombing them seems a foregn concept. Anand Gobal has a piece up on TomDispatch.com which provides some graphic description of what our war is doing to the Afghans and how some of them are reacting. He makes clear that the last thing the place needs is more foreign troops:

When, decades from now, historians compile the record of this Afghan war, they will date the Afghan version of the surge -- the now trendy injection of large numbers of troops to resuscitate a flagging war effort -- to sometime in early 2007. Then, a growing insurgency was causing visible problems for U.S. and NATO forces in certain pockets in the southern parts of the country, long a Taliban stronghold. In response, military planners dramatically beefed up the international presence, raising the number of troops over the following 18 months by 20,000, a 45% jump.

During this period, however, the violence also jumped -- by 50%. This shouldn't be surprising. More troops meant more targets for Taliban fighters and suicide bombers. In response, the international forces retaliated with massive aerial bombing campaigns and large-scale house raids. The number of civilians killed in the process skyrocketed. In the fifteen months of this surge, more civilians have been killed than in the previous four years combined.

During the same period, the country descended into a state of utter dereliction -- no jobs, very little reconstruction, and ever less security. In turn, the rising civilian death toll and the decaying economy proved a profitable recipe for the Taliban, who recruited significant numbers of new fighters. They also won the sympathy of Afghans who saw them as the lesser of two evils. Once confined to the deep Afghan south, today the insurgents operate openly right at the doorstep of Kabul, the capital.

But Obama plans to march more troops in as does McCain. So according to Einstein's definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - are these folks insane? Or is Afghan life simply not important enough to consider? Probably both.

Politics as team sport

Shankar Vedantam has a nice article at WaPo on the current state of affairs in partisan politics. (h/t Bob Somerby).

Pakistan, Laos, and Cambodia

Updated Below (I and II)

In a recent Asia Times article Saleem Shahzad compared the current policy of the US towards Pakistan to the actions taken by the US against Laos and Cambodia in 1969. Then with the situation worsening in Vietnam Nixon turned to bombing campaigns against North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia leading to disastrous consequences for the region and its peoples. Now with the situation worsening in Afghanistan the US is again lashing out with possible dire consequences for the region and its people. Shahzad's pieces tend to hyperbole but the way things are going maybe he isn't too far off.

It is not entirely clear who is in charge of US policy towards Pakistan. During the summer it seemed that the US supported the idea of Musharraf serving out his term albeit with little or no power. Zalmay Khalilzad had other ideas and with the classical neocon predilection for making a bad situation worse he provided Zardari with the backing to make a successful bid for the presidency. In Zardari we have a leader totally beholden to the US. This is not a good thing. While we can be certain he will accommodate us to the fullest extent possible what we actually need in that part of the world is an ally with some local credibility - not a paid goon. And Zardari in Tariq Ali's words "is the worst possible slice of Pakistan's crumbly nationhood." With a popularity rating of 14%, despised by his own party activists, he is not someone who will be useful in winning hearts and minds for the US in Pakistan.

The conflict we are now facing with the Pakistani army is one of the unintended consequences of Zalmay's grand adventure. The military has been unhappy for some time with the role it has been assigned by the US. There have been mutterings of US perfidy and rumors, especially in military circles, that the US is playing the jihadi card against Pakistan and secretly backing Beitullah Mehsud and the Pakistani Taliban. There is a Turkish saying that the thief fears for his house and the pimp for his woman. So this is probably a case of worrying about being done by as you did. While the US has done some stupid things in that region backing our own jihadi forces against the Pakistanis would be beyond moronic. However, the fact that such rumors are being spread and believed by people who should know better shows the depth of suspicion engendered by the US. The recent US incursions into Pakistan provided an opportunity for the senior officers in the military to show their displeasure with the policy being pursued by the government. Musharraf could probably have contained it. Zardari cannot. And Kayani is too new to command the kind of loyalty from the corp commanders that Musharraf did. What we are witnessing is pretty close to a revolt within the army against the Chief of Army Staff. This is an extremely dangerous situation. Unfortunately, all indications are that things will only get worse. US policy towards Pakistan is no longer being managed by the State department. All indications are that without effective civilian leadership the US military is making policy. With all due respect to the US military, militaries by their very nature focus on the short term sometimes to the detriment of the long term. As for the presidential candidates I leave you with Tariq Ali's recommendation to Obama (h/t A Tiny Revolution)



Update

It seems Kayani is doing some housecleaning. (h/t Cernig) I don't know how effective that will be in the long term if the current US policy continues.

Update 2

There are unconfirmed reports that Beitullah Meshud has died apparently of natural causes. If true this gives the Pakistan Army some breathing space. On the other hand it might just be a ruse to relieve some of the pressure being felt by the Pakistani Taliban.

AKP Survives

The constitutional court's decision not to close down the AKP is being viewed with relief in most of the west. "Turkey steps back from the brink ..." said the Independent and the view was widely shared by most western media. However, the relief might be premature. The closure case was the latest round in the struggle between the AKP and the secularist forces in the country.

While in the beginning the danger to democracy was more from the secularist forces, I think now the threat is more from the majoritarian impulses of the AKP. This trend was clear after the nomination of Gul for president by the AKP even though Prime minister Erdogan had previously agreed on consensus candidates (from within the AKP) with opposition parties. That lead to a crisis - early elections and a further strengthening of the AKP. Since then the AKP has tried to pack various government ministries with its supporters, and has mainly played to its base - giving up its promises of further democratization. The bill to lift the headscarf ban was the last straw for the secularist and they tried to hit back with the suit to close the AKP. The attempt failed and the question now is whether the AKP will take its latest victory to mean that it can continue with its majoritarian policies or whether it will return to what was its initial promise of being the government of the entire country.

It would be good for both AKP and Turkey if it takes the latter course. The AKP won 47% of the votes in the last elections , a huge plurality in the context of Turkey, but that still means that there are 53% who preferred others to AKP. Given that the platform of the opposition was basically a negative "anyone but AKP," that means that a majority of the population is suspicious of the AKP. This is especially true of educated women - both of the female justices on the constitutional court (Fulya Kantarcioglu and Zehra Perktas) voted for closure - and women have been complaining of "neighborhood pressure" from local AKP supporters to dress "modestly." If the AKP continues its push for a "permanent majority," a'la Rove it will only increase polarization within the country.

The AKP was the first national party in years to beat out the ethnic Kurdish parties in the Kurdish heartland and one had hoped they would be responsive to the problems faced by Kurds in the Southeast. However, with their focus on their base the AKP has pretty much ignored the Kurds. This has been a missed opportunity that Turkey might rue if the separatists start regaining traction.

Finally, it should be noted that the vote of the constitutional court was close. It required seven of the eleven justices to agree to closure - the motion for closure had the support of six justices. If the AKP continues on its current course the next attempt to close it might succeed. At least until Gul can change the composition of the court the threat to the AKP is real. All in all the action of the constitutional court was not an ending. Hopefully, it will be a beginning.

Views

And within minutes of the first word of Hillary Clinton's suspension of her campaign, I saw talking heads reaching out and giving America a big ole hug of self-congratulation for Obama's victory. "I think this speaks very well of us as a people," said one earnest commentator, a no-doubt "progressive" academic eagerly supplying a soundbite through his neatly-trimmed beard. "I think it makes us look great!" enthused no less an expert than Jim "Ace Ventura" Carey, who was collared at some sort of green consciousness event and asked his opinion of the historic development. The conventional wisdom "takeaway" was already solidifying: America is uniquely great and divinely special, because we've allowed a black man to win a presidential nomination -- and he's still alive! That's the kind of people we are. USA! USA!

From Chris Floyd.

"This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18 year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun," remembered Sgt. Geoffrey Millard, who served in Tikrit with the 42nd Infantry Division. "And this car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that's a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts two hundred rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle. It killed the mother, a father, and two kids. The boy was aged four and the daughter was aged three.

"And they briefed this to the general," Millard said, "and they briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. They briefed it to him. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says, 'If these f---ing hajis learned to drive, this sh-t wouldn't happen.'"

From Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian via TomDispatch.com.

Banality of evil

Sometimes the expression "the banality of evil" strikes home. Listening to this interview I kept feeling I was living in an alternate universe. Are we truly this unaware of the evil we do?