Johnny, rosin up your bow

...I didn't manage to actually post this the other day, so it's a bit late, but...

A bit of credit goes to a local DJ in Washington, who, during his "cavalcade of comedy" on the morning show noted, "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez called President Bush 'the devil' during a speech to the UN General Assembly yesterday. Bush had no comment, as he was on his way down to Georgia." I always like cleverness at 7:45 am.

Underlying this joke, though, is something we all should've seen coming - a war of rhetoric. Since the debut of the "Axis of Evil," world politics has read like something out of a Marvel comic. It's only fitting that we've now moved beyond name-calling of epic proportions, and into the Biblical.

I suppose it's only fitting then to evoke an even earlier time - the Stone Age. For all of you who wondered why we were fighting the GWOT alongside an autocratic regime founded via a military coup, Pervez Musharraf now has your answer. Apparently, they're fighting on our side since Dick Armitage told the Pakistani Intelligence Director, "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age." Heck, I'd think that was a pretty convincing reason. See the Times article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2369505,00.html

But why is this coming to light now, five years after 9/11? Turns out Mr. Musharraf didn't like Bush's statement that he'd kill Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan, thereby violating Pakistani sovereignty.

But wait! This is a surprise?

We've known for years (decades, really) that Pakistan's northwestern border is porous, that the people living on each side consider themselves to be one people, and that the Pakistani government has little control in the region. We've chosen to make policy that ignores this fact, and now our government has finally realized that we are putting ourselves at risk.

This is amazing to me, frankly, since I have in my files a memo from 1981 (seriously - I keep it because it's older than I am) talking about security and development in the Pakistani tribal areas, and what sort of potential aid programming would be appropriate in the region. Looks like we'd've been better off if the USG had acted back in the 80s.

Ahoy, Mateys!

In a departure from the norm, it's my favorite day of the year: National Talk Like A Pirate Day.

http://www.talklikeapirate.com

Find out your pirate name, get some good pirate jokes, and leave all the h-arrrrrr-d news until tomorrow.

Avast, ye swabs!

Blowing the Horn of Africa

A failed assassination attempt on the president of Somalia's interim government has killed at least 11 people in Baidoa. Two car bombs were detonated as Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed left a speech at the Parliament building.

As Somalia is part of a region highlighted by think tanks, government agencies, and relief workers alike as, alternately, a cluster of failed states, a haven for terrorists, and a humanitarian crisis, one would think the western papers would pick up the story. Somalia's interim government, backed by the West, is largely incapable of holding power in much of the country, including Mogadishu, the capital. The interim government operates from its seat in Baidoa, while the Islamic Courts movement has gained control of Mogadishu and major national seaports, and has witnessed a surge in power over the last few months.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DDD925B8-35B3-4891-8997-B758C916A151.htm

It will do the West little good to ignore the Horn of Africa in the next year, although it may be that we are too late to play an active role in forestalling the rise of the fundamentalist IC. The lack of rule of law within Somalia is highlighted by today's incident where a Catholic nun was shot and killed outside a children's hospital in Mogadishu. The attack was likely a response to remarks made by the Pope last week about militancy in Islamic tradition.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2362945,00.html

Angry reactions around the world have followed Benedict's quoting of a medieval text during an address at the University of Regensburg, including protests, vocal condemnation of Vatican policy, and the recall of Morocco's ambassador to the Vatican. Fringe reactions have included a new threat of jihad from Al-Qaeda.

Also, this is unrelated, but cool:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2363546,00.html

Deja Vu

I hope this story breaks bigger, and with more analysis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302052.html

Oh, good, another front:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/485C7BAD-DE33-4795-B62F-9360769B1DE0.htm

Where am I?

I missed 9/11. I don't mean to say that I didn't watch the planes hit the tower, because I did, or that I didn't hold my breath along with the rest of the world to find out what, if anything would happen next, because I did. But I did all this from a pub in Dublin, having been in the city for four days, having just found an apartment, having walked literally miles to do it (the bus system being incomprehensible, initially).

I don't mean to say that I don't remember 9/11 as a catalyzing moment in history. All I mean to say is that I don't remember it as an American. I remember it as an American abroad, and that is a very different thing. There are pieces that are easier - I couldn't, for example, see the smoke from the Pentagon like my classmates. But the TV broadcast we watched didn't zoom away from the people who jumped out of the towers. The people who stood next to me and held my hand weren't Americans, and the people who gave me their phones to use weren't, either.

And so, when I landed back in the US, home for Christmas, and in Boston (the same airport I'd left from four months earlier) the first thing greeting passengers in the Arrivals hall was a wall-sized American flag and two soldiers with automatic weapons, I didn't know where I was anymore. I missed those first few months, the ones where America shifted so profoundly. I came back to my own country as someone apart, and I wonder, sometimes, whether that will ever change.

I look at world policy from an uncomfortable vantage point - as if I'm floating somewhere over the Atlantic, not a part of Europe, not fully a part of the US. The more I travel, the less I seem to be able to put down political roots anywhere, and the less I want to.

Urdu, English, Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi

Do you know what those languages are? Those are the most commonly spoken languages in Pakistan. The official languages are Urdu and English. Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi and Baluchi are the four most commonly spoken regional languages. Note that Arabic is not a language spoken in Pakistan.

I made the mistake last night of turning on ABC's "Not a Documentary" about the lead-up to 9/11. After 10 minutes, I was so angry I turned off the television, called ABC, and tried to complain (the complaint voice-mail box was full. Hah.). Why am I so upset? It's simple.

9/11 was a horrible event. It changed the way our country views the rest of the world, the way we interact diplomatically (or not), and the way we view each other as Americans. I went to school for history. I appreciate history, and I appreciate the thrill of discovering the truth. To understand history is to understand who you are, to claim your identity, and use it to move forward. To change history is to change identity.

There is another twist to my anger. Not only does changing the truth insidiously weave falsehood into identity, it cheapens the very event it seeks to memorialize. 9/11 was bad enough. There is no need to make it "worse" for TV. To do so implies that it wasn't as bad as we thought, that it just isn't sensational enough. What a dangerous thing to say.

And finally, I'm angry at the level of art. Making a film is a painstaking process. When I turned on the TV, there was a scene set in Islamabad, Pakistan. Three figures were standing on a rooftop, talking about a plot to bomb airplanes. In Arabic. Explain, please, who overlooked this detail.

There are two options here - one, that the filmmaker is stupid, and didn't do his homework, doesn't understand his subject, and can't tell the difference between Urdu and Arabic. The languages use the same script, but they are not the same.

The other possibility is even more disheartening. What better way to show your enemy as a bloc, a faceless mass, than to take away its identity as surely as you dismember your own? By turning Pakistani terrorists into Arabs, by changing the actions of our own government - by hiding behind fictionalization - this movie weaves a myth about the world in a way that is both dangerous and devastating.

Question Time

Tony Blair announced today that he will resign within a year from leadership of Britain's Labour Party. This isn't such a shock, considering the recent mass exodus of cabinet members, lack of internal party support, and negative public opinion. What is interesting is the "why," and how it relates to US politics and the rule of law.

Blair has been either unwilling or unable to distance himself from his alliance with the Bush administration, and his base is unwilling to grant him flexibility on the issue. He threw in his lot with the US, and its policy, and now must see it through. Unfortunately, his inability to convince the population that this was the right decision now makes him more vulnerable to internal issues in Britain. In the UK, now, it seems as though GWOT tinges all policy decisions, from trade agreements and border controls to freedom of expression. Sound familiar?

Here, we see Republican candidates for the midterm elections hurrying to clarify their stance on the GWOT/Iraq, assuring voters that they are not puppets of the executive. That's telling, but it misses the point. Where you stand on the war in Iraq will not, ultimately, make a difference for the American body politic (in a long view, not in a "will I get elected in 2 months?" view), but it will, and does, influence how we define the role of government vis a vis the population.

This administration has defined its role in a paternalistic, authoritarian way. They "know best," and must keep information hidden because disclosure leaves us vulnerable to the "enemy."

We finally have the chance to ask a very important question, one that Britain has been asking Blair for some time now: What is the role of government? Plato asked it, Hobbes asked it, Kennedy asked it. No one has ever come up with a concrete answer for the simple reason that there isn't one answer.

There is, however, a framework of rules in which our government has sworn to operate - the Constitution. If they start to work outside the rules, it's our job to stop them, or if we as a people think the administration is right, work within the rules to change the rules. The Constitution doesn't give us guidelines, it gives us a society, and without it we lose our identity.

What we have begun to see in the US and the UK is an understanding that we are beginning to lose our sense of who we are, and that we're not willing to let ourselves go without a fight.

-----------------------
I hate to cite the Cato Institute, because it's just too easy, but they've recently published an interesting paper on "doublespeak" - applied Orwellianisms, perhaps. Take a look: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6654 The paper illustrates several examples of how language is used to convey meaning, and how twisting language for political ends damages the relationship between government and populace. Interesting.

Assassins

General Samir Shehade, a Lebanese intelligence official involved in investigating the death of Rafiq al-Hariri, survived a remote-detonated bomb directed at his convoy. The bomb killed 4 and injured 4 others, including Shehade.

Interestingly, the bombing comes 10 days before a UN report detailing the UN Chief Investigator into the al-Hariri assassination, Serge Brammertz's, findings is sent to the Security Council.

Now, I'm not an assassin. I'm also not intimately involved in either Syrian or Lebanese politics, but it seems to me that US suspicions that Syria is behind this assassination attempt are, well, asinine. Why? Here's the analysis for the day.

The UN report, although not yet submitted, is, one imagines, fairly close to final. In fact, Brammertz already submitted a report, and this one is an update of his findings. If I were Basher Assad, the last thing I'd do, when waiting on some pretty thin ice, is escalate the situation, particularly when I have a small chance to be taken seriously by larger world powers if I play nicely re: Lebanon.

On the other hand, who benefits from unrest in southern Lebanon? At the moment, it's not Lebanon, it's not Israel, and it's really not even Hizballah. Does Syria benefit? Does Iran? What is Tehran's real stake in this game, particularly when coupled with the current nuclear standoff and threat of UN sanctions?

If I were Assad, I'd be first in line to find the answer.

And then there were eight

After yesterday's conference in Prague, Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Now, I can't say this really has much of an effect on my life, but I am left with the following question. How am I going to remember the order of the other planets when my favorite mnemonic device no longer applies. For over a decade, I've relied on "My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas" to guide me in my planetary ramblings. Now what?

Here's a suggestion; others are welcome:

Many Very Eager Majors Join Squadrons Under Noriega

A Finger in the Dike?

A Northwest Airlines flight to Mumbai was turned back to Amsterdam's Schipol airport today, and 12 passengers were detained following suspicious behavior involving post-takeoff cell phone use. The cabin crew noted the odd behavior and informed the Captain, who radioed the for support. Two Dutch F-16s escorted the plane back to Amsterdam where the passengers were detained.

Alright. Good job on the part of the crew for being attentive, on the part of the Captain for following appropriate protocol, and the Dutch for responding promptly. But this begs the question: assuming there's a plot afoot, how do the various intelligence agencies fail to pick up at least a few of these potential security risks, particularly when they all board the same plane? It also begs another question: if you were running a terrorist operation, would you put all your operatives on the same plane? These two questions lead to a few possible answers (probably several others, as well).

1. None of these people is a terrorist, and all are unfamiliar with the rules governing cell phone usage on airplanes.
2. Some of these people are terrorists, and they are flying with their families, who are unaware of what they're up to.
3. All of these people are terrorists, but none of them has a prior criminal history, and therefore, their aggregation is not seen as a risk.
4. All of these people are terrorists, none of them has a prior criminal history, and their aggregation is part of a larger plan, where the strateic aim outweighs the risk.

Well now. Isn't that fun? It seems that, despite our best efforts at reacting strategically in the GWOT, we just keep reacting like the little boy trying to stem the flood.

And now we'll just have to keep an eye on the news to find out what really happened. Enough speculation on my part.

Sweet, Sweet Justice

In a decision that makes me glad I'm an American (yes, that was cheesy. deal with it.), US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in favor of the ACLU, determining that the administration's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. The argument, "We can't prove it's legal because that would violate national security," was never particularly sound, particularly considering the entire country was following the particularls of the case, and now it's been officially determined to be bull-hockey. Of course there is already an appeal to the 6th Circuit in the works, but still, I'd put this up there as Good Guys 1, Bad Guys 0. Hah.

In other news, Tobacco companies suffered a loss in a ruling by US District Judge Gladys Kessler, who backed the Justice Department's racketeering suit. In her ruling, she stated that the racketeering charge be upheld, as the "defendants have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted." They won't have to pay the $280 billion, but at least something good is coming out of the Justice Department these days.

And finally, in a note that's more "just desserts" than "justice done," the Washington Post ran an article yesterday about how K Street lobbying firms are starting a hiring push to find Democrats. So, it seems that after 6 years of painful Washington partisanship, the tide is finally turning, and as always, the lobbying firms are on the front edge of the wave. Here's hoping I won't have to put on nude stockings and pearls just to walk downtown anymore.

See, I'd invade Kamchatka

And so it was in the days of my boss' college experience that Dubya lived also in the dorms at Yale. And lo, there were final exams, and yea, there was gamesmanship.

So, it turns out that the 'Merican president was a year behind my boss at Yale. And apparently, he was the kid who spent the study period before finals playing Risk. Now, there are so many good metaphors here that it's almost making my brain overheat. So, we'll stick with the easiest one for now.

As anyone who has played Risk knows, it's a pretty black-and-white game. It's not the game of world leadership, it's the game of world conquest. Force trumps strategy when the dice roll your way, and unlikely maneuvers can pay off if you have enough willingness to go all in and keep betting on sheer probability. That's how my uncle once managed to conquer the world from a nice, secure base in Australia.

However, as anyone who has played Risk also knows, the Middle East is the worst place to start your world takeover. Unlike some more friendly venues, when you start in the Middle East, you have enemies (or, in a less dramatic sense, other players) at every conceivable turn. It's nearly impossible to defend, since you have no safe place to put your back, and you have to marshal resources on all your borders. Sound familiar, anyone?

It seems that Dubya's penchant for Risk has carried through to today, but now he's playing it with a much bigger board. Perhaps we'd all be better off if he'd spent that time studying, or at least playing Diplomacy, instead.

Let Slip the Dogs of War

Read the very excellent comment piece by Jacob Weisberg (editor of www.slate.com) in today's Financial Times re: Lieberman and the fate of the Democratic party.

Meanwhile, Israel's security cabinet voted to expand the ground offensive into Lebanon to meet the Litani River, and restructured ground command to sideline the (relatively) cautious Adam. Theoretically, this move will increase Israel's troop levels in Lebanon, strike a harder assault on Hizballah, prevent Hizballah from reaching Israeli territory with Katyusha rockets.

Theoretically, this move could also do the following:

Kill 300-500 Israeli soldiers (my guess is that this is a conservative estimate, as accurate death toll estimates don't tend to drum up civilian support for wars in democracies), and an unknown number of Lebanese civilians who are now trapped in southern Lebanon;

Further devastate the infrastructure of southern Lebanon;

Prompt Hizballah to use their supplies of longer-range Iranian missiles, escalating the conflict and exacerbating tensions between the West and Iran;

Recruit more Lebanese to the Hizballah cause, as the longer Israel stays in Lebanon, the more support Hizballah garners. There's a new generation of children who will have to make the choice between an ineffective national government and an effective, nationalist/Islamist extra-governmental army.

And what of the wider Middle East? Arab countries are not without their own problems, and many face internal tensions that are exacerbated by surrounding conflict. For example, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, a banned organization (that still holds seats in government), declared this week that they could send 10,000 jihadists to Lebanon to fight with Hizballah. Long-held tensions between the Palestinians and the Lebanese seem to be easing as leaders from both Fatah and Hizballah see Israel as a common enemy.

This change is dangerous, as Fatah held power as a secular party. Forgive my naivete, but a secular Palestinian political party aligning with an Iranian-sponsored Islamist movement signals a move towards the sort of ideologically irrational alliances made to marshal resources before a wider war. Desperation breeds strange bedfellows.

The Bellwether?

Well, now. As I write this, polls in Connecticut are likely on the verge of closing over one heck of a primary. The nation (and the world, frankly: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2304231,00.html) is watching Celebrity Death Match: Democracy as Lieberman takes on Lamont in an election centering nearly entirely around the war in Iraq.

How easy to say that a Lamont victory is a victory for the blogosphere, for the liberal left, for disaffected Americans nationwide. How wrong. Lieberman's politics, although I don't agree with all of them, show a consistent, smart approach to foreign policy (and the funding thereof, although a lot of his support for the foreign affairs budget stems from funding for Israel), a fundamentally liberal voting record on social issues, and a refusal to give in to one-issue electioneering. Lieberman's a liberal of the educated sort.

It's lucky for the left and the center that Lieberman is considering a run as an independent, not least because trading the influence of Lieberman for Lamont would be a blow to Connecticut's standing in the Senate (I assume here that a Republican would not take Lieberman's empty seat in a final election, but . . .). There are other, more subtle reasons to value his determination to run the race, regardless of his party.

There are not enough independent minds in the US government today. I seriously doubt that Lieberman as an independent will vote any differently than Lieberman as a Democrat, but how refreshing to have a senior member of the Senate cut ties with party affiliation, however nominally.

The second issue does, I admit, center again around Iraq. Lamont's message resonates with voters, but the "get out now" approach to foreign policy is just unrealistic and dangerous. Regardless of the reasons why the US embroiled itself in the Middle East, we did it. They (nearly) all voted for it. We have made a mess, and made a dangerous situation more dangerous, for Iraqis and their neighbors, and for ourselves.

It is irresponsible in the extreme to suggest that troop removal (while continuing training and technical assistance) will have a positive outcome. I can tell you right now that I wouldn't go back to Iraq if the US military wasn't there, and I'd wager there are quite a few aid workers that would agree with me.

We aren't doing the right thing in Iraq right now, but Lamont's proposition won't remedy the situation, either. We need intelligence, strategy, and long-term planning, not rhetoric and name-calling.

So, is this election a bellwether? Is anyone surprised that a New England state would come out anti-war? Does it really show a leftward tilt in the democratic party? Does it even matter, if Lieberman garners a win as an independent? The answer is no.

Oh, yes, we're drowning

It's time for a change.

In the past, I've focused my blogging activities (http://ririaroundtheworld.blogspot.com) on my personal travel stories. I've decided that the world has gone a bit crazy, and the rules I've set for my travelblog don't give enough room for expanding.

So, now I welcome you to ophelianic world, where the topic is global in scope, and nothing is sacred.

Enjoy!