The Citizens

Bell Curve

The Law Talking Guy

Raised by Republicans

U.S. West

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Saturday, May 08, 2004

Dig up stupid!

In my morning survey of news sources in the internet, I found that the LA Times has two stories today that deserve attention. And neither of them is about Kobe Bryant or Michael Jackson!

The first presents pretty strong evidence that the Marines have essentially turned Fallujah over to the insurgents. This was sold to the public as a transfer to a neutral Iraqi force that could establish order. The LA Times interviewed a member of the new Iraqi force that has been given control of the city by the Marines. This Iraqi guy says that he was an insurgent a week ago and considers his stint in the American sanctioned "Fallujah Brigade" as a pause in his fight against the Americans. This brigade is supplied with weapons by the US. So basically, the US forces attacked the city, failed to take it, then delivered a supply of arms and ammunition to the people who just fought the Marines to a stand still.

The second story speaks to the White House claim that they were kept in the dark about the torture in Iraq by Rumsfeld. This story quotes the Operations Director of the International Committee of the Red Cross as saying that his organization reported torture by American soldiers in Iraq and that these reports were repeatedly brought to the attention of Coalition authorities in Iraq "throughout 2003." What is more damning for the White House is the assertion by the Washington Delegation of the ICRC that they had face to face meetings with officials at the US Dept. of Defense, Dept. of State AND THE WHITE HOUSE about problems with torture by US and coalition forces in Iraq. This directly contradicts the White House version of events that puts it all on Rumsfeld's failure to bring the story to the President. The President knew all about this from the ICRC, what Rumsfeld sat on was the fact that CBS was about to break the story on national TV. I'm convinced that for this administration 90% of the problem with this situation is that there are photos. If it were just a story about torture but without photos, they wouldn't (and didn't) take it seriously. This leads me to believe that root of the problem will continue to fester and there is a good chance torture will continue and sooner or later new photos will come out taken since April of this year.

The solutions to both Fallujah situation and the torture scandal remind of the Simpsons episode where Mayor Quimby, Chief Wiggum, Homer, and Otto have dug a deep hole and can't get out.

"Quimby: I guess we're not going to find anything.
Otto: Um, how are we going to get out of here?
Homer: We'll dig our way out!
Wiggum: No, dig _up_, stupid."

Friday, May 07, 2004

Political Fallout From Iraq

Time to start premature speculation about what is going to happen in terms of the political fallout from the torture scandal. Rumsfeld warned on Capitol Hill that there are worse reports yet to be released!!!! (By the way I strongly recommend that everyone buy a copy of this week's Economist at the news stands. This Libertarian/Conservative magazine has a powerful cover page demanding that Rumsfeld resign). So what will all this do to the political situation here in the US?

I will get the ball rolling...
The Bush campaign right now is based on two strategies. First, pushing the image of George Bush the firm, solid leader. Bush is portraryed as the "War President", the man with "moral clarity." Second, Kerry is a flip flopper who doesn't take responsibility for his votes in Congress.

This mess in Iraq directly undermines both strategies. The current Bush solution to the scandal (blame it on Rummy) will only satisfy Bush's most steadfast supporters. Many others will see Bush as dodging his responsibility as "Commander in Chief." Also, its hard to say this administration is about "moral clarity" when we are in the middle of revalations about wide spread torture in Iraq etc.

The question will be how salient is the Iraq thing to most voters. But the Bush ads have been based on the "war President" idea and little else. So even if this issue is not salient, it undercuts the reelection strategy and forces them to "play defense" at a time when the polls have Bush and Kerry neck and neck.

And what about internationally?

We can all guess what reaction in the Middle East will be (Great Satan does it again - see we told you).

What about Europe? I think this makes it political suicide for any European leader to increase their country's level cooperation with the US in Iraq. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some allies currently in Iraq pull out over this. If the USA is lucky, Europeans will blame this on the current administration and a future Kerry administration will be allowed to mend fences. But Bush has 0 political capital with the Europeans right now.

Any other ideas for potential fall out.

Something fishy

Well, baseball backed off from putting Spider-man ads on the bases. Do you ever get the feeling that someone put one over on you?

"We listened to the fans," said Geoffrey Ammer, president of worldwide marketing for the Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group. "We never saw this coming, the reaction the fans had. It became a flashpoint -- the reaction was overwhelming." I find it very hard to believe that they never saw this coming. Everyone knows baseball fans are a bunch of purists. Mr. Ammer also said, "We saw some of the polls on the Internet that said that 71 and 81 percent of the fans didn't approve of it." So after ONE day of floating this idea, they pulled it because of a few loud fans like myself? One ESPN poll had 40,000 respondents. Who knows how many people voted several times?

I think this was all staged. They should have known a huge reaction was coming and developed a plan for waiting it out. Instead, they immediately do an about-face -- but keep the other parts of the promotion. This way, everybody wins, from their perspective. Sony's new movie gets essentially free advertising from the press, à la "Passion of the Christ". Baseball looks like an extremely responsive and caring entity that puts the wishes of the fan before all else. The promotion goes on --

"Other parts of the promotion will be unchanged. Movie trailers will be featured on stadium scoreboards, the logos will be placed in the on-deck circles, and fans attending the games will receive "Spider-Man 2" foam fingers and masks. Movie branding will also appear on a ceremonial pitching rubber and home plate -- both of which will be replaced with the standard white variety once play begins." (from ESPN).

-- with MLB still getting $2.6 million from SONY. And now, the idea of advertising on the field has been planted in our heads.

What would have happened had they initially announced this promotion the way it is now? There still would have been a huge and violent fan reaction to MLB's greediness. But now that we've killed the sacrificial lamb, we tend to overlook the rest.

Thursday, May 06, 2004

Let the guessing begin! (response)

This $25 billion request is nonsense. Everyone in Washington knows that the Bush administration is low balling the appropriation to lower voters' "sticker shock" until after November. There is already an open secret that there will be a further request for the balance of the bill in February (right after what they hope will be Bush's second inauguration).

Here is what I think Senator Kerry should do. Don't simply vote no. Instead, he should propose an amendment to the appropriation that will force the Republicans to vote "no." How? With an amendment with two parts. First, propose that the tax cuts for the top 2% of the income distribution be suspended for the duration of the "war on terror." Second, conditional on the suspension of those tax cuts, increase the appropriation dramatically to bring more in line with what the war is actually costing.

The Senate is a strange place and Kerry might just be able to get the amendment to a floor vote. If he can, it would force the Republicans go on the record as preferring tax cuts for the rich to more money for our troops.

If it passes, Kerry got rid of the tax cuts until the Republicans admit that the "war on terror" is a rhetorical device as much as a real war. If it fails, Kerry can claim, "I proposed a substantial increase in the funding for our troops and the Republican leadership killed the proposal in committee to protect tax cuts for their fat cat friends." That way even if he votes "no" he can say he voted "no" because the amount was too small.

Baseball's reply

Here is the entirety of the e-mail I received from Major League Baseball in reply to my telling them that they were a bunch of greedy whores:

Dear Major League Baseball Fan:

Thank you for your letter regarding Major League Baseball's marketing
partnership with Columbia Pictures.

Major League Baseball Properties has teamed with Columbia Pictures and
Marvel Studios for an unprecedented marketing partnership to support the
highly anticipated national release of Spider-Man® 2, it was jointly
announced by Geoffrey Ammer, president of worldwide marketing for the
Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group and Tim Brosnan, EVP Business, Major
League Baseball.
The focus of the marketing partnership will be a weekend of
Spider-Man® 2 events coordinated with Major League Baseball Properties and
the 15 MLB Clubs hosting home games June 11-13.
During Spider-Man® 2 Weekend, which has been scheduled during a
segment of the 2004 Major League Baseball Interleague Play schedule,
ballparks will feature in-park and on-field Spider-Man® signage and each
Club will feature special Spider-Man® promotional events, including
giveaways with the world-renowned web crawler. In addition, highlights from
Spider-Man® 2 will run on stadium video boards to promote the motion
picture's June 30 release. Major League Baseball Properties and the 15
participating Clubs will promote Spider-Man® 2 Weekend locally in each
market and nationally.
"This is the perfect alliance between two quintessential national
pastimes -- baseball and movie going," said Ammer. "This partnership
celebrates superheroes, whether they are on the field or on the big screen
and we are extremely excited about the opportunity to create this unique
promotion with Major League Baseball."
"Spider-Man® 2 Weekend is a part of our continuing marketing efforts
to appeal to younger fans in new and non-traditional ways," added Brosnan.
"We anticipate that Spider-Man® 2 will break records at our ballparks and in
the theaters."
Major League Baseball Clubs hosting Spider-Man® 2 Weekend are the
Anaheim Angels, Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox,
Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Royals, Milwaukee Brewers,
Minnesota Twins, New York Yankees, Oakland Athletics, Seattle Mariners,
Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Texas Rangers, and Toronto Blue Jays.

Thank you for your interest in Major League Baseball.
Sincerely,
MM, MLB.com

They are pretending that this is a way to get kids more excited about baseball. Does anyone believe that?
They also "anticipate that Spider-Man® 2 will break records at our ballparks and in the theaters." Well, I don't. In fact, I expect a boycott of both baseball and the movie until they decide that this thing is moronic and kill the plan. Be sure to e-mail them and tell them they're idiots.

Let the guessing begin!

All right, guys, how does Kerry vote on the $25,000,000,000 that Bush wants for Iraq? What is the politically better move? I say he votes no, arguing (again) that he doesn't want to spend like this without rolling back the tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans. He could also point out (rightfully) that he doesn't want to give Bush this money without a clear knowledge of what he's going to do with it. Any thoughts?

Bush shocked, shocked to find there is gambling...

President Bush privately reprimanded Secretary Rumsfeld for failing to keep him informed about prisoner abuse in Iraq. Of course, a private reprimand wouldn't be of any value unless you tell the press about it afterwards so that's what Bush did. Rumsfeld in turn is saying that he wasn't kept informed either. Its beginning to look a lot like the fall out after a cover up.

The Taguba report detailed all of the abuse - which was "routine" and much more extensive than the CBS story implies - and was submitted to the Defense Department in the first week of March. Of course, Rumsfeld hadn't read it as of the beginning of this week.

Now there are loud rumors that Rumsfeld is on his way out. If he goes, look for the Bush administration to try to make a positive out of this by offering Rummy's job to John McCain.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004

Greed and baseball

I know it has very little to do with politics, but it has a lot to do with greed. I'm pissed at baseball's selling out. I suspect there will be a tidal wave of disgust for this and it will never get off the ground. Is nothing sacred anymore? Please complain by e-mailing MLB and telling them how stupid this is.

Um, since this is a politics blog first and foremost, I want to refer readers to this Reuters article which discusses the slaps on the wrist two people who KILLED Iraqi prisoners received. Is there any accountability at all? The answer is: No.*

------------------
*This is also a Simpsons reference. We need more of these.

Civilian Contractors

With fingers being pointed at "Civilian Contractors" in Iraq I thought it would interesting to remind people that this isn't the first time these companies employed by the US military have committed crimes.

A Human Rights Watch report on Bosnia points to involvement by independent contractors, hired by the US to help set up law enforcement agencies in Bosnia, are involved in trafficking girls and young women for the international sex industry. This trafficking usually involves kidnapping, rape and extortion.

Check out the HRW report and/or google "contractors Bosnia."

Citizens and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

The anonymous Republican that RBR quotes makes a big deal of the distinction between the constitutional rights of citizens versus non-citizens. This is typical of the rhetoric today, and is based on a fundamental misconception of our constitution.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments state (5th applies to the feds, the 14th to the states) that NO PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. These amendments have been understood for more than a century to mean that every human being subject to American jurisdiction has, in Jefferson's phrase, "certain unalienable rights."

The limitations on rights of aliens in this country are not many, and tend to revolve around participation in government (jury service, voting, government employment).

In other words, the constitution does not give the federal government the right to torture or imprison without trial persons who just happen not to be citizens. Note how I have phrased that, as well. The constitution gives the government its powers, it' s not some namby-pamby "limit" on otherwise plenary power. Back in the 1990s, libertarians and other "federalists" understood the federal system and the grant of limited authority. Too bad now that the tendency of the right wing to toady to authority has surfaced again.

It's The Economy Stupid

If our loyal visitors take a look at the latest Zogby polls they will see that jobs are the most important issue for 1/3 of voters. Iraq is the biggest issue for 1/5 of voters. It would appear that once again, "it's the economy, stupid!"

Is the problem trade? Dean, Nader, Kucinich, Buchanon and others say the problem is global trade. They argue that by allowing open trade with developing countries, the US is giving away jobs. The mechanism, according to them, is that cheaper labor in the developing world combined with permissive regulations in the US allow jobs to be "outsourced" and otherwise shipped abroad. This leaves American workers with few options besides working for peanuts at Walmart or McDonald's (so called "McJobs").

So will forbidding companies from outsourcing solve the problem? Will clamping down on trade openness make things better? I suggest not. In fact, I agree with most economists that reducing trade openness would make people worse off by making prices increase and reducing investment at home. After all, if companies are moving production overseas its because its cheaper. If we forbid that some portion of those companies will respond by simply stopping production altogether. Society will be left with higher prices, and will lose jobs anyway.

What is to be done?
Trade has been a problem for countries in Europe for decades. They responded by structuring all of their government services to accommodate the problem. They work from the principle of flexibility. Tax structures are arranged so that investment and re-investment is easier and cheaper than consumption. Capital gains taxes are low or non-existent but income taxes and sales taxes - especially on luxury items - are very high. Unemployment insurance benefits are generous and long lasting. Education is nearly or totally free at all levels. The result is that as world economic conditions make it unprofitable to produce some good or service in the country, both the capital and the labor switch to more profitable industries with relative ease.

In the USA, we have half of that. Capital is very flexible but workers are not. It is very difficult for unskilled workers in the United States to increase or change their skills. The result is that when a textile mill shuts down somewhere, most of the workers won't have special skills and will have to find a job that does not require much skill. If the textile industry as a whole is unprofitable in the United States, that leaves the aforementioned McJobs. Meanwhile jobs that do require specialized skills continue to be plentiful and unfilled.

Recently, it has become cheaper for American companies to pay the legal fees needed to bring in skilled workers from overseas than it is to train or educate an unemployed American.

I argue that our problem is not our open trade policy. The problem is - largely but not entirely - the shoddy adult education system in this country. We could do more for the economy by offering FAR more generous support for education and retraining than we could by raising tariffs or forbidding companies from outsourcing.

If you are interested in a detailed discussion of how trade exposed countries can adapt to world trade see Katzenstein's Small States in World Markets. Its a classic!

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

What do candidate travel plans tell us?

Both Kerry and Bush are doing a lot of traveling in swing states like Ohio and Michigan. The media report these trips as visits to the entire state without much analysis of what PART of each state the two candidates visit. I found it particularly annoying that CNN reporters described Lebanon, Ohio (in SW Ohio) as being in the "rust belt." Lebanon is not in the heavily industrial NE but in the more agricultural SW. This not to say that Lebanon never had a factory in it, but a comparison between Lebanon and Warren (in NE Ohio) will reveal enormous differences.

Bush's trip to Ohio was a bus ride from the Michigan border down through Western Ohio passing through Dayton and Lebanon to Cincinnati. Essentially, Bush drove down I-75, a primarily rural, agricultural area of Ohio until he got to Dayton where the Cincinnati-Dayton sprawl zone breaks up the corn and soybean fields. This route took Bush through the Republican stronghold of the state. Bush's drive through Michigan the day before, similarly avoided Democratic strongholds like Flint and non-suburban Detroit. Instead, Bush routed his visit to suburban and rural areas of southern Michigan which voted for him in 2000. This was a trip to "energize the base."

Kerry's trips to Ohio seem likewise intended to "energize the base." Kerry's appearances tend to be in places like Akron, Cleveland or Youngstown. These are classic "rust belt" cities which have seen heavy manufacturing economies erode away over the last 30 years. These are also Democratic strongholds where unions still have a great deal of influence.

Both candidates also take steps to pack audiences with known supporters.

The next time a candidate comes to your state, log onto the David Leip election atlas (see link to the right) and find the map that breaks down the 2000 election in your state by county. See if Kerry doesn't tend to go to counties that voted for Gore and if Bush doesn't tend stay in counties that voted for him.

The implication of all this is that this election is going be much more about which side gets more of their people to the polls than about actually convincing undecided people with reasoned debate. Expect lots of negative personal attacks without much substance. : - (

But don't let yourself think that this means there are no substantive differences. There are huge differences. But both parties have figured out that most people have already made up their minds so their strategies are about getting their known supporters to vote in bigger numbers.

Monday, May 03, 2004

More Republican Points of View

Bell Curve, your wish is my command....

Here is what a Washington Times (Republican paper) quotes Bob Barr (R-GA) as saying. "'Kerry isn't a supporter of terrorism any more than I am, just because we both raised some questions about whether some things in the Patriot Act go too far," said former Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who thinks aspects of the law violate personal privacy.
"The Fourth Amendment is a nuisance to the administration, but the amendment protects citizens and legal immigrants from the government's monitoring them whenever it wants, without good cause, and if that happens, it's the end of personal liberty,' Mr. Barr said. "

I suggest however that my friend's views are far more representative of Republican voters in general. I've been in rooms with several Republican relatives and heard them say far more extreme things (especially about immigrants) among themselves than this guy has. Remember, he knows I'm a Democrat and he's probably toning down his rhetoric from the way he would talk if we were both Republicans.

If there are Republicans who visit this site from time to time and think they have a better argument in support of the Bush administration position on civil rights and the "war on terror" please post a comment. We promise to be polite in our discussion of it.

More Fair and Balanced Republican POV

My Republican friend has replied to my concerns about civil liberties as follows...

"When investigating terror cells, you MUST do it in private and secrecy.....the only way to catch other cells in the US is to detain people without others knowing that a) this person was detained, b) allowing them to 'talk' to counsel, so that the others in the cell can be alerted. c) You need a chance to interrorgate to get information.......I do however think that an American citizen should be granted ALL constitutional rights, just not aliens.....we do the same with border jumpers if caught....." (as before, the "..." and all caps are in the original email. No emphasis added. I just cut and paste the portions of the email exchange).

I had said that people suspected of aiding terrorists should be prosecuted according to the law but that they could not simply be locked up. He replied:

"Sure we can if they are not citizens"

This one sums up the gist of his opinion on this matter:

"Like I said......citizens should be given constitutional rights, except if they actually fight with the enemy....."

He had compared what the Bush administration is doing post 9/11 to the Cold War and I said it didn't compare because while the Bush administration rounded up thousands of Arab Americans and Arab immigrants and held them for months without access to lawyers and family, the same was not done to the American Communist party during the Cold War. To which he replied:

"And that was unfortunate....we can thank Sen McCarthy for screwing that up......he became just a bit too paranoid......because we all know there WERE commies in govt at that time."

Comments folks?

Sunday, May 02, 2004

From Fallujah to Jerusalem

RBR is correct, in my view, that by announcing that the post-June-30 government will be different than the present government, we have created a massive incentive for power-hungry Iraqi factions to just outlast it. If, however, we had announced its new composition (i.e., via elections), then the losers at least would have an incentive to deal with the existing government.

We have made all of this much worse by the failures in Fallujah. First, we lacked the troop strength to prevent the attack on the contract employees, and couldn't respond to prevent the nasty riot that lasted for hours including charred bodies hanging on the bridge. With this bloody event on TV, the marines soon realized that they lacked the ability to, essentially, re-occupy Fallujah without re-conquering it. However, without the cover of war to give this legitimacy, the occupiers cannot blast Fallujah to hell. Note that we could have done that last March. So we have, in effect, retreated ("repositioned") outside Fallujah. We have discovered that ex-Baathists and the (defeated) Iraqi army is preferable to our other options in the area.

I suspect that after June 30, the situation will degenerate much farther. After all, the new "caretaker government" has one job: prepare for elections in December. The predestined outcome of those elections: a Shiite majority in Iraqi government. How do the Sunni (including former Baathists) prepare for this? The Fallujah problem will spread throughout the Sunni triangle. They will angle for what the Kurds have: de facto independence. And they believe they can do it too -- the US military either can't or won't stop them (and what is really the difference at the end of the day?)

Even worse, this war is really hurting Israel. As long as we're tied down in Iraq, with our military stretched thin and the American public becoming disgusted with increasing casualties in the Middle East, our (unofficial but real) security guarantees to the Israelis are plummeting in value. Not only can't we follow through, but the impotence shown by the USA in Fallujah has destroyed the aura of invincibility won in the last Gulf War. The USA may be done for as a power in the Middle East. If so, the peace deals with Israel brokered under the auspices of American hegemony in the 1990s may come crashing down, along with the governments that supported them. Indeed, how safe will Jerusalem be when the last American leaves Iraq in the same manner that the Americans left Saigon in 1974? No wonder Ariel Sharon wants a deal.

Is the Transition Plan in Iraq Encouraging Chaos?

Hi all, I'm downloading journal articles again...and with a dial up modem (I know I know) it can take a while.

I recently saw an interview with historian Nial Ferguson (currently at NYU soon to be at Harvard) on CSPAN. He made a remarkably good point with regard to American administration in Iraq and Iraqi resistance to it. The gist of his point was that as soon as the Americans set a deadline of June 30th for the provisional Iraqi governing council, any incentive for Iraqis to cooperate with it went out the window. Why cooperate with an entity that you know is going to end at a particular date? They won't be around to follow through on any agreements you make with them.

In short, he is saying that the reason Al Sadr, Sistani and various Sunni leaders seem more interested in establishing their political positions relative to each other (Al Sadr is accused assassinating at least one rival; a number of Shia mosques have been bombed etc) than they are in making deals with the US backed Governing Council is that by setting a fixed time frame for the Council the US authorities made it impotent from the start. Ferguson did not speculate as to whether this was intentional or not.

I'll extend Ferguson's argument here and suggest that by setting similar deadlines for the Transitional government which will take over after June 30th the American authorities have hamstrung that entity as well. What's more, the American authorities have required that anyone who participates in the transitional government promise not to run for office in the first elections (I believe this is the case, can anyone confirm this?). This means that aside from the deadline it will be known in advance that the individual leaders in the post June 30th transitional government will not be around to follow through on any deals they make with other Iraqis. It precludes the possibility that a shrewd Iraqi politician could parlay participation in the transitional government into a base from which to build a coalition to run the country after the first elections.

There are reasons to think that precluding transitional authorities from running for election is a good idea. The intent is probably to ensure their objectivity. However, by establishing a firm, fixed and known deadline for participation at each stage of the transition, the American authorities are almost assuring that no Iraqi leaders will have any incentive to cooperate with each other or the Americans themselves.

The result is that I'm now convinced that under the Bush plan for the transition, we will see minimal improvement in terms of peaceful cooperation among the Iraqis. The Bush plan is recipe for continued factionalization and perceptions by Iraqis (particularly the Sunnis) to believe that Iraqi politics is a zero-sum game where any gain for the other guy is a loss for them.

I can provide a more detailed explanation for why fixed time frames result in no cooperation on demand.

Comments anyone?

US Abuse Case Widening

There are reports now that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq was encouraged by intelligence officers attached to the prisons. This is consistent with long standing concerns about how prisoners in the "war on terror" are being treated. I refer you to an article from the 1/9/2003 Economist entitled "Ends, Means and Barbarity." (no link, sorry. But most libaries keep the Economist for years. You might find it on Lexis Nexis. Thanks to a friend for reminding me of the article).

For those who don't know, the Economist is an excellent British news weekly. It has a right of center editorial bias, particularly on economic issues but they rarely get their facts wrong (something that can't be said about Time or Newsweek et al). They are not nearly as stridently partisan as the Wall Street Journal has become. I recommend making the Economist one of your sources of information.

Back to the issue at hand....Not only are there now reports that US intelligence officers tolerated and even encouraged abuse but there are new reports that so called, "independent contractors" have been closely involved in abuse. "Independent contractors" is a term the administration uses to refer to anyone in Iraq who isn't actually in uniform. This ranges from truck drivers and construction contractors to former special forces troops from around the world (like the "contractors" from Blackwater). A large number of the so called "contractors" are what we used to call mercenaries.

So here we have a widening scandal of abuse with reservists (not trained fully as prison guards) being encouraged by intelligence operatives and mercenaries to abuse their prisoners. The "independent contractors" are not subject to military justice - by virtue of their civilian status - and are not subject to Iraqi law - by virtue of the "contractor" status.

Not the best situation for winning hearts and minds.

British Abuse Photos Probably Fakes

According to my favorite Danish news website, the photos showing British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner are probably fakes. The soldiers in the photos have the wrong type of weapon, head gear, and vehicle. British authorities are continuing with their investigation.

The photos have already been circulated widely in the Middle East so I doubt that revelations that they are probably fakes will make much difference with regard to relations with the Arabic world. However, if the photos do turn out to be fakes, Blair may be off the hook a bit with his unruly back-benchers in the House of Commons.

Saturday, May 01, 2004

It's Getting Worse in Iraq

The political situation in Iraq is in danger of collapse. The revelation that American prison administration in Iraq is so poor that some guards were allowed to run amok there may make it difficult for our current allies to continue their participation. It might also make it impossible to bring new allies (the UN or NATO) so long as Bush is President and continues to insist on this "my way or the highway" attitude.

But now, there is a story breaking that British troops also may have been abusing Iraqi prisoners in their occupation zone. British participation is already unpopular in the U.K. Furthermore, the Blair government has been peppered with criticism that they sent the British army to Iraq poorly equipped and poorly prepared. This new story will only exacerbate the political problems continued participation causes for Blair.

This is the sort of thing people who opposed the war in the first place imagined would happen if we started in Iraq. Think of the costs here. Not only are an unknown number of Iraqis scarred and humiliated by this but the American soldiers who did this stuff will also be scarred for life (hopefully it's limited to the 17 already currently identified). I can only assume that before they got over there, they were perfectly normal people. But now they must live with the memories of the terrible things they did in that prison. And this doesn't count the cost of American and Iraqi lives, limbs and treasure more frequently talked about.

As I think more about this I think there are two problems that arise from this: First, it is very possible that the US forces in Iraq will be even more isolated as another wave of allies backs out. Second, it won't make Iraqi people likely to want cooperate with the rebuilding apects of the occupation. That problem will last until the US forces do something monumentally popular with the Iraqis (I have no idea what could be right now).

Here is another story from The Guardian about the diary of a soldier involved.
Here is a link to the British tabloid/newspaper The Mirror that shows a number of the photos with decent quality.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised there haven't been more comments on this issue from visitors or at least from the other "Citizens." Perhaps we are all too shocked to really figure out what we think about this.

Hurray For Europe!

How about some good news for a change! 10 Eastern and Central European countries are now officially in the European Union as of today! This is a great step toward ending over 2000 years of division and conflict in Europe once and for all! The last few years have been nice and peaceful so people forget that just 50 years ago most of Europe was a bombed out wasteland because of WWII. And that was only the worst of a seemingly endless string of wars over religion, natural resources, territory, nationalist fervor, mariage contracts or the personal grudges of despots and tryrants. For 44 years after WWII, Europe was divided by the Cold War. But now most of that is over!

So congratulations to all the member states of the European Union! And here's a toast to the French civil servant who came up with the idea, Jean Monet! Peace through trade and commerce! What a great idea!!!!

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)