Sunni Against Sunni - Our Only Hope

Here is a recent headline in the NY Times:

G.I.’s Forge Sunni Tie in Bid to Squeeze Militants

This definitely isn't the first time we have seen reporting on US military attempts to turn Iraqi Sunnis - including nationalistic Sunni insurgents - against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (the main Al Qaeda group in Iraq). And each time I see reports of this, a new hope grows in me. It is one of the only strategies that could actually work in Iraq.

I don't really buy into the talk that Iraq is just made up of different ethnic groups that can't live together. Our problem is that we haven't been able to provide security. And the main reason we haven't been able to provide security is our inability to pacify Sunni insurgents.

There is a lot of talk in Congress about political reconciliation and forcing the Iraqi parliament to make compromises. But that is all meaningless until Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is shown the door. We have proven incapable of doing that with the troop levels we have - even with the surge. So we need Iraqis to help us with this. Bush may be an idiot, but his military commanders are not. They have been trying to get Sunni nationalists to turn against Al Qaeda for a long time. Let's hope it really starts working.

Fawlty Logic

Summary:
President Bush's logic on commuting Libby's prison sentence is bunk. But Bill Clinton is the last person who should be criticizing him.

I have to say, what I am most upset about with Bush's commuting of Libby's prison term is that his logic is complete crap. First of all, Bush says that Libby's reputation is tarnished and the stiff fine ($250,000) and probation are strong enough. That is nonsense; any minute now a firm with ties to the far right will hire Libby because they are proud of what he did. And with the salary they will surely give him, he'll be able to pay off the fine in no time.

Worse than that though, is Bush's claim (here is his statement) that the sentence was too tough. He is either being dishonest, or doesn't actually know his administration's stance. As the NY Times points out, the Bush administration favors tough sentencing generally and has rejected these very same arguments (about first time offense and prior public service) when used by federal defendants. And all the evidence suggests that Libby's jail sentence was in line with similar cases.

It will be great if the article is right and defense attorneys start using Bush's reasoning in sentencing briefs before federal judges. I bet the Justice Department will soon issue a brief that says they still support tough sentencing and don't think prior public service should be considered during sentencing.

The point is, I would much rather Bush had just come forward and told the truth. All he has to say is that Cheney told him to do it - and since he takes orders from his VP, he had no choice. Or he could have just said that he lied when he said he would take the Valerie Plame leak seriously, and actually should have said that he would protect anyone involved in that because politics is more important than justice and consistent policy.

At the same time though, Bill Clinton has no right to criticize Bush on this. His Marc Rich pardon was never justified to the public as far as I know.

Perish the Thought

This is a hilarious Opinion piece. Basically, it talks about how countries like China and Venezuela are providing aid to developing countries with only their interests in mind. Perish the thought.

Because the goal of these donors is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they seek to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda or even line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn’t care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they aid.

Sound a little hypocritical? That accurately describes the history of our foreign policy. While I understand that we are promoting democracy and transparency (sometimes), as compared to autocratic governments, we still continue to operate to benefit our interests. After all, why would fight to protect Kuwait, but not lift a finger in any disputes in Africa?

Sorry, More Friedman

This is an interesting column ($). I am not sure I completely agree, but it might end up being our only option. Friedman suggests that since the surge isn't working, our only other option is to move our troops into the Kurdish north. This would allow us to prevent the inevitable civil war from spreading outside the country, while using a democratic and peaceful "Kurdistan" as a model for the rest of the Middle East.

First of all, I am not sure Turkey would be as willing to go along as Friedman suggests. At the very least we would have to end the practice of Kurdish terrorist groups using Iraqi Kurdistan as a based to launch attacks against Turkey. I also wonder whether peaceful and democratic societies have any impact on the countries around them. I used to think they would, but I am growing skeptical.

Worse though is the decision to abandon the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. I know we might have to do that at some point in the near future. But I feel that the extent of the violence would pull us back in. Friedman also assumes that if we did pull out we would be able to prevent the violence from spreading outside the borders, which I don't think I agree with.

Friedman is spot on when he says that the Shiites and Sunnis both want to dominate the country. Neither really wants a pluralistic society right now (nor do the Kurds). So maybe I have to accept that there are no other options. At some point soon, we may have to leave the Sunnis and Shiites to their fate. God forgive us.

Another Mentor of Mine

So there are two people who have had a large impact on the development of my international perspective. You have already heard about Thomas Friedman; the other is Nicholas Kristof. In this column ($), he talks about civil conflict and instability as the greatest killer in Africa.

Mr. Collier [author of The Bottom Billion - a book I want to read as soon as the NYPL gets a copy], a former research director of the World Bank, notes that when the G-8 countries talk about helping Africa, they overwhelmingly focus just on foreign aid. Sure, aid has a role to play, but it’s pointless to build clinics when rebel groups are running around burning towns and shooting doctors.

One essential kind of help that the West can provide — but one that is rarely talked about — is Western military assistance in squashing rebellions, genocides and civil wars, or in protecting good governments from insurrections. The average civil war costs $64 billion, yet could often be suppressed in its early stages for very modest sums. The British military intervention in Sierra Leone easily ended a savage war and was enthusiastically welcomed by local people — and, as a financial investment, achieved benefits worth 30 times the cost.

Sometimes I feel like the reason good governance and foreign aid are emphasized is because military intervention is much less popular. So we console ourselves by talking about how much money we send to developing countries. I think promoting good governance ($) is a joke when you are talking about somewhere like Congo (or Iraq) - stability is a definite prerequisite. But that won't happen until this country and its leaders make a serious decision to actually protect all the victims in war torn regions.

I Hate Agribusiness - and Congress too

Here is another example of what is wrong with our agriculture subsidies. Not only do they give us an unfair advantage in global trade (effectively keeping developing countries from actually developing), but they don't even go to the farmers that really need them. It is shameful to see how often Congress gets it wrong - how often they send money to powerful interests while cloaking it in language of helping those in need.

Hypocrisy

I love it when life circumstances show the hypocrisy in someone. Here, we see that Robert Bork, conservative judge with strong tort reform views, is now a tort plaintiff. Actually, instead of him being a hypocrite, this seems to support my hypothesis that often times conservatives are merely good people lacking imagination or empathy. In the past, Bork might have been unable to understand why someone would need to use the legal system to seek compensation for some wrong committed. Maybe now he understands. If only it would make him reconsider the rest of his conservative judicial philosophy.