Branch of Iranian Military To Be Designated a Terroritst Organization

It was only in May of this year, that the U.S. and Iran agreed to high-level face-to-face relations after more than 20 years of diplomatic cold-shouldering. Although the U.S. agreed to the meeting solely on the condition that they only talk about Iraq, it was a momentous occasion, and the recommencement of perhaps a new (or any) dialog.

So then why, only 3 months later, would you decide to designate a branch of Iran's armed forces as a "terrorist organization?" Now don't get me wrong. I can be convinced that Iran is up to no good in Iraq, and their complete disdain for the International Atomic Energy Agency and all international norms surrounding nuclear proliferation is dangerous and frustrating. However, I do not think that designating a part of its military a "terrorist organization" is a good idea.

It will be the first time in history that the military of a foreign sovereign has been so designated. It's an off-handed way of accusing the whole country of sponsoring terrorism, which the U.S. has already done. It is also a just plain disrespectful way for one sovereign nation to deal with one another.

I think it will also end up being, like so many of the policies and decisions made by this administration, completely counterproductive. Unfriendly Muslim countries and organizations now have more fodder for their arguments that the United States is really at war with Islam generally and that the U.S. is acting unilaterally. This claim is also just asking to be responded to with cries of hypocrisy, given that it is our armed forces who find themselves in foreign lands.

I also think it will cause us to lose the favor of any remaining Iranian friends. While many in Iran are more reform minded and do not agree with the current bent of their leaders (I feel your angst, trust me), it is quite another thing to bad mouth an institution that is seen as being the forces loyal to Khomeini (and thus responsible for the Revolution in 79) and known for their bravery in the Iran-Iraq War. I'm not a big fan of our government right now, but I wouldn't take too kindly to another country designated the Marines as a "terrorist organization."

Coincidence?! My Patraeus!

Today, the White House announced that Gen. David Petraeus, will likely testify to Congress about progress in the war in Iraq on September 11 or 12. The fact that it may or may not fall on the anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center, are, of course, pure coincidence. Which makes total sense, because everyone knows that September 11 and Iraq aren't related at all. Who ever thought that? I mean, why are we even taking about this?! What a crazy idea!

Despite Surge in Language Skills, Congress Still Against Actual Substance of Comments

Bush: 'I'm the decision-maker' on Iraq (from Yahoo!/AP)

Yeah, I think we got the gist of that from your last civics lesson. The more things change I guess. I don't really understand the point of singling out Iranians here. I doubt the Army has a policy of checking passports before returning fire. It is well-established that Iraq has become the flame to the moths of international fundamentalists. I don't think that needlessly highlighting any Iranian national involvement right now is a good idea considering that the rest of the international community finally agreed to impose sanctions on Iran for its complete disregard for the IAEA. I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before Tehran retorts that the US is trying to further malign Iran.

The Execution of Saddam Hussein

I have hesitated to post anything about the execution of Saddam Hussein, mostly because by the time I thought about it, everyone else had already done a better job than I could. And also because the gravity of the event just sort of overwhelmed me. I'm just going to make a few observations.

I have seen a couple of posts and comments that referred to the Iraqi Special Tribunal as a sham court. I don't think that's entirely true. I do believe its independence could be questioned given that it was appointed by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council back in 2003, but I think under the circumstances, the judges did the best they could, and I don't think their thoroughness can be questioned; the English version of the final written opinion is 298 single-spaced pages-long, making it one of the longest opinions ever issued by a war crimes tribunal (available in English here).

I think in many ways this trial was in trouble from the beginning. Having Iraqi judges apply international law and procedure that they are not familiar with was probably not a good idea. I think some sort of hybrid system would have been better, as was done in Sierra Leone.

While the trial was televised in Iraq, it did not seem to offer any "truth and reconciliation" to the Iraqi people, with the insurgency increasing in intensity. I disagree with the death penalty generally, but even if Saddam was to be executed, I think it would have been better to have him stand trial for all of the crimes for which he is accused. Only then could history, not to mention Iraqis and the outside world, have a better idea of what this man was truly responsible for.

I worry that Hussein's death will end up creating another martyr to a culture that is no stranger to martyrs, a symbol for the Sunni insurgency, and another cog in the downward and self-perpetuating cycle of violence that plagues Iraq and all of the middle east.

(Good article by Michael Scharf about the trial)

Executing Saddam during a holy holiday (Eid ul-Adha), when people are distracted by celebration, is also a particularly bad idea when creating a martyr is already a distinct and predictable outcome.

With Friends Like These....

I found a very disturbing article in the NY Times yesterday about detainees in Iraq. Here is an excerpt:

American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.

The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.

But here is the crazy party, this was not a captured insurgent. Rather it was:

...Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.

But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military, which was unaware that Mr. Vance was an informer, according to officials and military documents.

At Camp Cropper, he took notes on his imprisonment and smuggled them out in a Bible.

Mr. Vance also stated:

While we were detained, we wrote a letter to the camp commandant stating that the same democratic ideals we are trying to instill in the fledgling democratic country of Iraq, from simple due process to the Magna Carta, we are absolutely, positively refusing to follow ourselves.”

I couldn't have said it better myself. If this is how we are treating Americans working in Iraq who report suspicious activity, I can only imagine what we do to everyone else.

On a similar note, I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" the other night on the Daily Show, and what he had to say shocked me (I can't find the Daily Show clip, but here's a link to an interview on "Foreign Exchange"). I know there have been a lot of books about what has gone wrong in Iraq, but what this guy had to say was just bananas. Senior Arabists in the state department were not part of the rebuilding of Iraq because they were not seen as being loyal to the neo-cons, and instead we sent a bunch of people right out of college. This statistic is crazy: half of the people we sent over to rebuild Iraq had to apply for their first passport. These are not worldly people. Here's a Washington Post article about the book, and an excerpt. Apparently hummus couldn't be found, but pork and beans was the standard fare...I'm sure that won the hearts and minds of the Muslims. This makes it clearer and clearer why things have gone the way they have.

I've ordered the book. I'll let y'all know how it is.