Another Bush-Maliki videoconference
There’s no surprise in the rising chorus of demands in Washington that Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki be replaced. After all, the U.S. public discussion of Iraq has been fixated on the notion of a troop surge providing cover for Iraq’s political leaders to meet “benchmarks” of progress towards national reconciliation — and it’s long been obvious that Maliki has no intention of doing what Washington wants him to do (a fact that hardly makes him unique among Iraqi politicians). Every time Maliki is pressed on the matter, he snarls that he answers to those who elected him, not to the U.S. The extent to which Maliki rules at all, of course, is questionable, in the sense that there’s precious little acreage in Iraq that could be accurately deemed to be under his control control — as Stalin retorted when it was suggested that the Pope be invited to the Yalta talks on the shape of postwar Europe, “How many divisions does he command?” And in Maliki’s case, the answer is none.
As Nir Rosen makes clear in an interview with Amy Goodman, the Iraqi state has already essentially collapsed, and prospects for putting it back together are grim.
The problem is not Maliki, of course — things were no different under his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and there’s every reason to believe that any politician chosen to replace Maliki from within Iraq’s democratically-elected legislature will represent more continuity than change. Peter Galbraith recently offered an eloquent explanation for why the Iraqi political leadership is unwilling to compromise to accomodate the Sunnis, which is the cornerstone of the U.S. plan for national reconciliation.
Unlike the politicians in Washington who seem blithely oblivious in their campaign-trail debates, the Iraqis — like everyone else in the Middle East — are well aware of the limits of American power, and the fact that it is on the wane. The signs are everywhere now, nowhere more so than in the fact that even the regimes most dependent on direct U.S. military support — Iraq and Afghanistan — are simply ignoring the Bush Administration’s injunctions against consorting with Iran.
They know the U.S. has shot its wad, and that it can’t sustain the current troop “surge” beyond next spring. They smell the panic in the discussion in Washington over how and when to pull the troops out, as the underpinnings of American power begin to creak ominously, like that bridge in Minneapolis — in an extraordinary intervention in the Financial Times, recently, U.S. comptroller David Walker compared the U.S. to the Roman Empire on the eve of its collapse, warning that current debt, taxation and expenditure levels combined with infrastructural decay, an aging population and ruinous military commitments abroad have created a “burning platform” for U.S. governance.
Even as Washington was calling for his head, Maliki was in Damascus, cutting new security and economic deals with an Assad regime that, according to the fanciful projections of the neocons at the start of the Iraq adventure, ought to be have been but a memory by now.
Curiously enough, it is in the options now facing that Assad regime that best illustrate the extent of the collapse of Pax Americana in the Middle East. Seeking a readout on the Maliki-Assad talks, I emailed Joshua Landis whose Syria Comment blog remains an absolutely indispensable source on all things Syrian. His explanation:
Syria has reached a decisive moment in its regional politics. As it becomes clear that the U.S. must begin withdrawing from Iraq in the coming year and that the surge was only a temporary U.S. excuse to prolong a losing hand in Iraq, Syria must decide what strategy it will pursue toward a post-American Iraq. Will it side with Iran in supporting a Shiite government or will it side with Saudi Arabia in supporting the Sunni resistance?
It is in this context that we must see both the Maliki visit to Damascus and the Syria-Saudi spat. Syria has placed itself in between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It has not only supported the Sunni resistance leaders but also improved relations with the Shiite dominated government through visits, increased security measures at the border, and by establishing diplomatic relations and an embassy in Baghdad. Syria cancelled a meeting of Sunni opposition members that was scheduled to be held in Damascus a little over two weeks ago. In its place it held a security conference at which Iraqi and U.S. members participated. Saudi Arabia refused to send a delegation or even an observer to the conference, sparking the latest round of Syrian-Saudi accusations.
Maliki is now visiting Damascus in order to lock Syria into a pro-government stand. Maliki is also being attacked by U.S. congressional leaders as an ineffective leader. Some have called for his replacement. He is fighting for his life and recently stated that if America abandons him, “he can find friends elsewhere.” He is turning to Syria and Iran.
Syria was hoping that as the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, Saudi Arabia would seek better relations with Syria in order to create “Arab solidarity” and a united regional front in the face of Iranian penetration of Iraq.
Syria wants to gain Saudi acquiescence for Syria’s role in Lebanon in exchange for Syrian support of Saudi policy in Iraq. This “deal” has not happened. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. are holding firm in Lebanon and continuing to deny any concessions to the Lebanese opposition – Hizbullah and Aoun – which is allied with Syria. Hence, Syria will be inclined to strengthen its pro-Iranian stance and woo the Maliki government away from the U.S. It is in this context that we must understand Damascus’ moves to warm relations with the Maliki government and restrain the Sunni resistance. It is doing this as much to punish Saudi Arabia and the US as to reward Maliki and Iran.
Syria and Iran will try to take Maliki away from the United States. The next few months will be a crucial turning point in regional power politics as all the regional actors jockey for position to exploit and prepare for America’s eventual withdrawal. Syria could go either way. So far, it looks like Saudi Arabia and the US are refusing to woo Syria. They will force Damascus to stick close to Iran.
Joshua’s comments highlight two things:
1) The U.S. has created an intractable mess in Iraq, because steps taken to firm up the only government capable of maintaining majority support mean siding with Iran against Washington’s Arab allies, while the only alternative is essentially to get back in bed with the Baathists and try to once again install a regime of supprression of the Shiite majority — which can’t work, because the mechanisms are no longer in place, and the Shiite majority is risen.
2) The players in the Middle East are already making their calculations on the basis of U.S. retreat. The only alternative to Maliki that might change the dynamic would be for the U.S. to back some form of coup. Juan Cole reports that rumors are rife in the region that this may be precisely what is in the works, but even if it were to happen, it wouldn’t stabilize the situation. It would simply create a new authoritarian regime that the U.S. would have to support against its own people — you know, like that Vietnam business Bush has suddenly discovered. I hesitate to guess that might be why the U.S. refrains from authorizing a coup. Instead, the U.S. will muddle on with the present order, perhaps drawing down its troop levels and relying more on air power to essentially manage the conflict at more or less current levels. Maintaining the present level of civil war may now be all that’s possible with the leverage available to the U.S. acting alone. And, of course, drawing in others who can make a difference would require adopting the more grownup attitude to Iran recommended by the Iraq Study Group, but which the Administration appears incapable of embracing.
Iraq is hardly the only theater in which U.S. power is clearly on the wane. Whether it be the grandstanding of Russia and Venezuela or the more understated (and much more profound) challenge of China to U.S. geopolitical hegemony, encroaching at will now in the traditional U.S. “sphere of influence” of Latin America, sewing up Africa, and so on. A few years ago, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, comprising Russia, China, the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Iran (with observer status) would have been dismissed as a kind of geopolitical sour-grapes club. Instead, it represents a growing challenge to U.S. influence throughout the region. As Dilip Hiro noted recently, “No superpower in modern times has maintained its supremacy for more than several generations. And, however exceptional its leaders may have thought themselves, the United States, already clearly past its zenith, has no chance of becoming an exception to this age-old pattern of history.”
Even U.S. comptroller David Walker makes a similar point, warning “The world has changed dramatically in recent years. The U.S. is currently the sole superpower on earth but that exclusive status is likely to be short-lived. While the U.S. is number one in many things, from teh size of its economy to military might, it faces several big sustainability changes.” Forgive him his understatement, he is after all the head of the U.S. government’s non-partisan Government Accountability Office.
Hardly surprising, then, that Maliki — like all Iraqi politicians — is hedging his bets, assuming a U.S. withdrawal is inevitable at some point, and doing his best to strengthen his position for the conflicts that will follow. I wouldn’t bet on his surviving. Then again, Maliki may also be aware of a corollary to the trend of declining U.S. power most graphically illustrated in the plight of the likes of Mahmoud Abbas in the Palestinian Territories and Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan (if she continues on the path of making common cause with Musharraf at Washington’s behest): Right now, in many different parts of the world where the U.S. has vital interests at stake, being allied with Washington is less of a boon than it is a political kiss of death.
Pingback: Morning Readings § Unqualified Offerings
Recently Canadian MP Dalton McGuinty disallowed the introduction of Sharia law into Ontario family law — it’s come that far. I track the Saudi funded expansion of militant, extremist Wahhabi (Salafi) Islam at my blog, Wahaudi. http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
Looks like Allawi is getting ready to make his move.
Helena Cobban (via Iraqslogger) reports he is paying a lobbying firm big money (our money, of course) to get Robert Blackwill (our former point man on Iraq) to convince the WH and Congress that Allawi is the man for the PM job. (He’ll have to promise to stay away from Damascus and Tehran of course.)
There’s a circularity in all of this that is the true mark of insanity!
Pingback: Target: everybody at Antony Loewenstein
Bernard — Allawi and Blackwill failed last time, this time they won’t even get to try. I don’t think the Bushies are ready to rerun the Diem coup despite Bush’s recent enthusiasm for the Vietnam example — as Helena archly asked in an earlier post on her excellent site (http://www.justworldnews.com), what exactly would America have done in Vietnam if it hadn’t withdrawn from 1973-75…? The U.S. knows Allawi is a spent force; that may be why he has to hire a lobbying firm. Too late for that…
Tony, just wondering what impact you think France’s entry into the Iraq situation will have. Do you think there is much chance Kouchner will be able to mediate successfully among Iraq factions to produce a stable government?
litho: Kouchner is really off to a running start, parroting HIllary’s demand that Maliki should be axed. He even called Condi to ask her to replace him with the VP Adel Abdel Mahdi.
Well done, Kouchner, your buffoonery is a joy to behold. Miss the good old imperial days, don’t you? When the White Man got to appoint the natives’ leaders? Born too late, I’m afraid.
I’m not very familiar with the particulars, but wasn’t the Vietnamese leader assasinated or dismissed at some point? How did that work out for us?
Yeah, agree with Bernard, I think Kouchner is, frankly, out of his depth here. Great humanitarian activist, but hardly the sort of unsentimental realpolitik operator that the Iraqi situation requires. Besides, he’s identified himself way too closely with the American effort in Iraq to be of any use.
i’m actually surprised by all these comments about Kouchner. I’m hardly an expert on French politics, but from what I’m hearing Sarkozy and Friends are doing pretty well. They are certainly projecting their power, but they are doing it in constructive ways–mediating in Lebanon, helping to resolve the Darfur crisis, etc.
Bernard, we already touched on this, but it’s worth going back to: what is the role of Western nations in the “third world”? Should a legacy of imperialism disqualify France from positive diplomatic contributions now?
Tony, maybe I’m just staying up too late, but your “unsentimental realpolitik operator” comment made my head spin. I’ve already seen how “realpolitik operator”s work in Congress! It is these operators that blew Iraq’s top off!
Uh, Shlomo — there was no realpolitik in the invasion of Iraq. I agree Sarkozy is doing well, but less so Kouchner. The French government essentially had to apologize today for his statements on Maliki, and Sarkozy’s own speech highlighted a call for foreign troops to withdraw. Kouchner seems to be a bit of a loose cannon; I suspect he won’t last too long in the job
America’s fate as a super power and a First World society has been essentially sealed by our changing demographics.
As whites are replaced largely by racial families with average IQs under 90, America’s wealth will decrease, and so our ability to project power into the world, militarily and economically.
JoeMorgan: I think your post is an metaphor for our intellectual decline. And I hope you appreciate the irony that your screen name is the same as a great AFRICAN-AMERICAN baseball player who refused to brook racism.
Tony, Thanks for the reply. Frankly, I know almost nothing about Kouchner so my question was really one of ignorance. I liked the way he had organized those Mediterranean EU states to call for Fatah-Hamas negotiations, and it looked like he was trying to position France as an honest broker among the Iraqi factions. I had missed his call for Maliki to resign.
I still think an honest broker might be a way to get the Iraqi factions talking to each other, and I guess I was hoping France could play that role.
Kouchner is having a tough time. For those who have any interest in the matter, I’ll explain what I believe is the reason why.
FIrst, no one is more PR conscious than Kouchner (except Sarko). Everyone in France remembers the photo-op of Kouchner posing on a Mogadishu beach in ’92 with a sack of rice on his shoulder. (The Somalia intervention turned into a complete fiasco, of course.)
Perhaps more relevant to his difficulties today was the episode around the same time when he called Mobutu “a walking bank safe in leopard skin hat.”
Before you jump to the conclusion that perhaps he had a point (racism aside), you should keep in mind that he was in the government at the time AND that while he was lecturing Mobutu, his own government was sending French troops to suppress an anti-Mobutu rebellion. (Hey, Sartre wrote a whole play about this sort of thing…)
I don’t deny his humanitarian qualities. The guy started an organization that saved tens of thousands of lives (How many lives have I saved lately??) He was the force (or at least the spirit) behind the rescue mission in Kurdistan in ’91. He did an OK job in Kosovo.
But to come back to his predicament today, what we’re seeing is a replay of Vance-Brzezinski. Sarko has in Jean-David Levitte someone who’ll soon be elevated to “national security advisor” and will be an unstoppable rival to Kouchner.
This is a battle Kouchner cannot win (and Tony might well be right about his premature exit). Levitte (former Ambassador here) is a pro at diplomacy. The Quai d’Orsay (France’s Foggy Bottom) is notoriously cliquish and entrenched. If the top boss doesn’t make the grade he’s toast. For example Chirac’s last foreign sec’y, Douste-Blazy, was considered a joke and an embarrassment by the Quai d’Orsay brass and never got anywhere with his “ideas” (of course, this is the guy who at Yad Vashem wondered out loud why there was no map showing the migration route of Jews expelled from England in WWII !!)
Even though technically, Levitte will have nothing to do with the “Quai,” for all practical purposes, he will run the place.
Kouchner overreached because he is beginning to feel the heat. The “Bulgarian nurses” story was deeply humiliating for him. He was entirely cut out of the loop and scooped by, of all people, Cecilia, the fashionista, concert pianist wife (sort of) of Sarko.
I would rather the French have nothing to do with trying to mediate anything as they’ve already interfered in Middle East politics enough (we’re still living with the legacy of their colonial shenanigans). And Sarkozy is just a bit too close to Israel for my liking.
The only solution is to isolate and embargo Israel into a failed ghetto state, much like what has been done to Palestine. Only then will they be pliable enough to accept the settlement they are given, and then solutions to issues in all other countries in the region will follow naturally.
it was anglosaxon rapacity then and itis anglosaxon rapacity now.
year–1997
Irak is right in demanding ouster of anglo-saxon spies from hollowed Iraki’s soil.In name of uno, and before that leage of friends ,and now Amnesty International, this heyena country called england has installed a lot bof speis all over World and has virtually hijacked Americans to do their domestic and foreign policies for furtherance of british (england’s ) interest than even American ‘s interest.
These days for last few years a lot of Kurdish refugees(who by the way are more aryans than all the europeans combined-though it is irrelevant here)are escaping from Turkey because of Turkish pressure. But nobody has ever stopped Turkey from having her air space nor has anyone bobed them. and why should anyone?Who has given right to a handfull of countries to be a policeman? Could they dare demand such thing at time of so called cold war? Every december,ever since gulf war there is a show of bullying tactics by anglo-saxons in middle east. There is really no ground but excuse is created because this race feels uplifted when others are insultated. Also there is a low cost exercise in bullying any other nation by military postures. Why should Iraq not have weapons as he desires?in 1981, when the israelis had bombed the iraqui nuclear reacto(a few days before going critical) it was britain)govt, and british media) who had vwhemently opposed Israeli daring action and did a lot of anti-jewish propaganda. Atleast Begin had a reason to fear from the arab enemy of israel. even in ’82 Lebanon war it was britain which was most vociferous in criticizing Isreali militay action at the same time minimizing the Isreali Airforce’s achievement in destroying Bacca’s valley missiles through high tech method.In fact What americans did in gulf war was what Isreali had achieved way back in ’82 in Lebanon war and America obtained that military know-how from Israelis after Lebanon war. But gulf war is justifiable on basis of military superirity but not Lebanon war. In fact when an american general said that america learned a lot from Israelis’ achievement then the american defense minister Winnberg said that itAmerica learned not from Israeli but from British. Ofcourse we all know that Wnnberg was (awarded sir) more of anbritish defense minister than american one. He was pro-british and anti-jewish (and antirussian and all others aswell). In fact in lebanon war the american foreign secratary was changed because the british did not like Hague’s attitude. This much britain exercises influence in american affairs. Now having installed all the stooges in Arab world britain has discarded her sham veil of Arabists and openly insults(through america ofcouse because on own britain is not even a fourh grade power)the arab world.Talking about the stooge, have you wondered why these days even Yeltsin’s bad health no longer makes any headline news in anglosaxon world?Before any cold that Yeltsin had was niticed and still before that any peon from Russia had a headline news ‘ material. The reaon is simple. Britain has installed in Russia not only a mad man likes yelstin but also a second line of stooge successor to him. After Yelstin usefullness is over then he will be replaced by those second line of british stooge who at the moment are already controlling Russia and destroying her everyday. Democracy ,as understood today, basically means any system which gives free hand to britain to exploit other races. If their is one example of what an evil this so called capitalism is and what a saviour communism(britain does not dislike communism, she dislikes other’s prosperity and independence whether it comes from communism, nationalism or what ever)is: this ruinous example of Russia is the real lesson. China is right to hold on to her nationalistic pursuit. It really is a war between anglo-saxons and the rest of the world. It is a race war.Sooner the rest of the world realizes that better it would be and this danger would be sorted out.
You remember that at the height of cold war in mid 80’s there was a lot of activities of C.N.D. You would expect that with so called cold war finished, this C.N.D. would be asking to the british peoples to leave the nuclear weopons given to her,out of pity and filiaty, by the United states. But exactly opposite happened. C.N.D. has been defunct since than. It is as if that was a front of the british govt. to show by way of propaganda that that country had some moral voice.In other words, C.N.D. was a sham created by the british to give them respectability. Ofcourse when a non-anglosaxon country aould perfect their nuclear weopon,as France rightly did, then there would be a lot of hue and cry by the anglo-saxons’ media. France and china are right in strenghtening their independent military power. The real danger to world comes from england and her anglosaxons agents. France understand that and Germany was a fool in not supporting France in Nato meeting this Summer. Just as Cnd has been proved a sham of british propaganda, more so is the sham which goes by the name of amnesty international. It is interesting that as soon falkland war started, within a few weeks this amnesty international presented a dozier on Argentina. In the same way as soon gulf war started(soon after Iraqui’s intervention in kuwait) the same amnesty international presented a dozier and report on Iraqui’s atrocities. an fact many of the amnesty allegations were just a copy of what british media was saying and which later on proved to be fabrication and great big lies. But bthis did not dent the reputation of amnesty international. british propaganda ensured that. IN ’88 when Dalia lama,at the height of Tibetan disturbances, visited west, the then british prime minister refused to meet Him. Later on with the demise of Russia and usefullness of China gone and with manipulation to keep power in Hongkong somehow intact, the same british media and government ,like dog, started barking at China. It is interesting that amnesty international selectively targets those very countries(as it did china after cold war) who are out of faviour(because they would not be a brtish sttoge)of the british media and govt. This is not surprizing as amnesty international is the creation of british govt, and british media. england with the most appaling record of human rights in last 200 years of her evil rule, needed some organisation to keep the others from chrging england off her past and current evil practices. In other words it went for aggresive posture in propaganda war so that others can be demoralized and stopped from ponting out the real evil which is england. That is why amnesty international is one armour of the british lies to exploit the rest of the world. Amnesty international must be ignored and an independent human watchdog (which england will simply ignore) created. One purpose of amnesty international is to create an atmosphere for hatred towards the would be vitims of british exploitation so that a victim could be blamed to have deserved the consequences. That is why ,now amnesty international sometimes threatens China, sometimes India and etc. India because india needs to be cowed down and also so that India does not make nuclear wepon and thus feel free from future american(read english and anglosaxon)aggression. This is all to create an atmoshphere of mis information. The other countries are also responsible(out of sheer inferority complex) for giving these instuments of british propaganda so much imporatance. If they simply ignore and then the british lies and then themselves go in offensive(they can do it-no problem)against british exploitation and propaganda then tose countries would not in such dire strait as they are now. Think, this deteriration has happened in only last 20 years(thogh the british have been at this game for a long time but they were not always succesful when others have been vigilant).Ignoring and fighting all this anglosaxons propaganda, the other races(yes it comes to that) must unite and support each other against this common enemy england. The other nations should also go nuclear and assemble as much arm as possible ,collaborate on it and ignoring this anglosaxon race they must be prepared for war which tjhen would be prevented otherwise it would come inevitably. The other nations need to arm themselves to protect themselves from anglo saxon race. Thinking any other way is simply kidding oneself. And it can be done and will be done.
WE throw a challenge to these low lifes-if the English feel themselves
ao powerful them let them attack and win even Irak(already weaken by u.n.sanctions)without the help of u.n.sanctioins(that means Irak would have same freedom to acquire arms and means and Arabs and Israeli had in thier war)
and with out u.s.a. England is neither Isreal of today nor Sparta of yesterday.Let them be reminded that at height of thier empire in 1917, England was almost defeated
by Germans when German army’s 3/4 th division was concentrated on Eastern front. These english are that weak and coward people.But thir mouth will have to shut for ever
when all the whites ,European and Thirld world unite against this english disese.
There is no point in telling them truth, they understand only one thing which they will soon get-tatal beating physically-the only language these animals understand. Hitler,who these worship
was wrong about the jews who were only british agents-what Hitler said about jews applied not to jews but to the english(anglo-saxons).race-pity he did not do the the british what should have been done instead. Well It is never too late.
For all those who talk of globalization and protection of intellectual property right, a small news which was never in prominent place in any of english speaking papers or news but was very much reported in French media. In the last weeks of October 98 was reported in French papers that 4 different French members of European Parliament were going to raise the question of industrial espionage of some 100 each of French and German companies by england in collaboration with u.s.a. and other anglo-saxon countries like Autralia and new zealand. In other words they same countries who made a lot of hue and cry over Indias nuclear test and who are the ones pushing for intellectual property rights and globalization. Thier modus operandi? Checking all satellite bases communication(telephone, fax, internet,etc)with help of klistening devices in anglosaxon countries and spying ao all the talks and messages all over world.This illegal activity is cordinated in england. European countries are loosins billions of dollars each years through leak of confidential techiqe and discovery. Apart form the fact that for tea,china, spices and plants this thief country england never paid anything for others’ intellectual property right(why does royal doulton or british tea company not pay royalty to China?) this thief country england has done theft of German technology like urea making ang consequently ammunition making. In fact Standarsd oil company of america made a lot of theft of BAAs. a Germany company and many of the bombs which fell on Germany came from german tech. stolen by anglosaxon thieves england and america. That is not counting stolen from germans the tech. to make nuclear bomb and rockets. With these stolen technology has this anglo-american race been able to bully the rest of the world. And it wants to freeze the DIFFERENCE between it and other races in stone-for ever so that it can rule others unhindered. By the same mechanism it destroyed japanes and other Asian econmis. That is why India and others need very badly neclear deterence against enemies of the rest of the world.And the rest of world wants to break from ythier cluthes but has no courage because most of thirld world is governed by the likes of traitors like manmohan singh and Ahulliavala and spineless people like Jaswant Singh and Gujral and Atal bihari Vajpaye types
avatar singh: Thanks for the Cultural Learnings of Rapacious Low-Life English Hyenas for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Sparta.
Bernard: I don’t understand how England can be all-pervasive and evil, yet also “on own [sic] britain is not even a fourh [sic] grade power”? As Baldrick on Bladderadder would say, it is part of a “cunning plan.”
Matthew: You’re asking the wrong person.
avatar singh provides the crap; I provide the jokes.
Fair deal, no?
Matthew: didn’t mean to be flippant, but ever since I found out from avatar that “thief country england has done theft of German technology ,” I have not been able to stop weeping.
I hope you understand and show mercy.
Bernard: I intentionally ignored the real author as I did not want to join the Anglo-Saxon global conspiracy of Anglophone Descending Powers.
avatar singh has a funny view of the past. Sure, many interesting technologies have been invented in Germany, but bad enough, you cannot run a successful state with an ideology of hate – as the Nazis tried to do. That’s why many good people left for the United States. But: avatar, don’t be afraid, there are still many good people around here 😉 And if the Bushies go on like that, spying on their own people and all the sorts of ugly dictatorial abuses of decent U.S. law I’m sure the good people will eventually come back over here.
As for the article, very interesting, very insightful. Obviously Bush succeeded to reach his personal goal: to make it into the annals. No matter how. What a plight, the text will read on: GWB, U.S. president who needlessly but efficiently gambled away American influence and respect throughout the world.
Great post by Tony. Good comments (up to a point).
Bernard: I have been holding my sides laughing. Nearly fell off my chair.
Bernard–thanks for the info on Kouchner.
Tony: Were we reading the same news? The buildup to Iraq was almost entirely about realpolitik. The neocons invented scare intelligence, and constructed a fancy narrative about “freeing” Iraq from Saddam, but underneath all that was pure realpolitik. Bush, Rove, and Cheney had an agenda, and they bullied the rest of the nation and perhaps the rest of the world into following it.
I also think you’re a little too quick to count America out. Things look horrendous now, but there is a general recognition that this is so; all the major presidential candidates have “change” platforms, and it is generally agreed that the upcoming election is a turning point. See what happens in 2008!
Avatar, I feel much better now. I always thought my posts were kinda long, but you’ve taken me to school.
abraham..what?! The Israeli ghettoization of Palestine has led only to greater radicalization among Palestinians. Doing the same to Israel will only throw power to Likud just as the Western embargo has thrown power to Hamas. Then, the situation will be even worse than it is now. Jeez…with that outlook, you could work for Condi…
Bernard, I join Shlomo in thanking you for the background on Kouchner. I feel much better informed now.
Shlomo, I don’t see a whole lot of realpolitik in the neocon fantasies about restructuring the Middle East. Seems to me they believed too much their own ideology of the US as a global unipower, and their hubris has in fact — as Tony and Josh suggest in the post — seriously hastened the process of US decline.
Yes, a Democrat will almost certainly win in ’08. What will that change, really?
Zion the promised land of the Jews, God’s Chosen People, must be defended at all costs.
My duty as a Christian is to serve the Jewish people. I am willing to sacrifice my children in battle so that the Jews may live. Half my salary goes to Jewish charities each year. We give our blood and labor without question to the Chosen people.
Both my sons are serve as front line infantrymen in Iraq.
Exposing Zion to danger by leaving Iraq would be the greatest sin, one God would never forgive.
“Cultural Learnings of Rapacious Low-Life English Hyenas for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Sparta.”
Just delicious.
Billy: I love my children enough to only let them serve to defend one country: my own. Let’s hope you represent a small, small minority of Americans.
Billy,
Will you feel the same way if your sons are killed?
There are 6 million people in Israel today. 4.8 million of them are Russian emigres. The majority are not religious, but they’re Jews. Are these who you’re saving? Would you sacrifice your children so that the Jews in China and Iran will live as well? How about the Jews in Greece? Or are you mainly concerned with the dirt, the land, the 60-year-old political entity?
You might be interested in Rabbi Goldstein’s talk that gives a historic overview of Zionism., and the true biblical definition of Zion.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1456.htm
“As soon as it was founded [zionism], it was condemned – Jews came out and said this is atheistic, this is idol worship…”
” I am willing to sacrifice my children in battle so that the Jews may live.”
Hey Billy, this is Shlomo here, an Orthodox Jewish Zionist. Like you, I am committed to serving my Jewish brothers in Israel and throughout the world. But wait, I’m confused…why aren’t YOU pushing for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and the Palestinian Territories? I sure am. That would be a good start toward protecting Jews, as well as the actual Iraqis and Palestinians…
Litho, what might change? That depends on which Democrat is elected. It turns out that while the neocons were pushing a hubristic and apocalyptic ideology to invade the country, Democrats only tagged along because of realpolitik. They were afraid to voice opposition so as to avoid the political kiss of death: “soft on terror!” Therefore, tell me how “hardheaded” and “pragmatic” a Democrat is, and I’ll tell you how deeply terrified that candidate makes me.
Well said, Shlmo. I happen not to be a Zionist, but I also love Jews…regardless of where they live. (And my affection is derived from real personal relationships, not some mythic honoring of a construct called “The Jews.”)
So how is pitting Arabs and Jews against each other is hardly a sign of love? My God is a big God. The World is big enough for all of us. Why don’t the Fundies of all stripes get that? Fundamentalism is, to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, “the common enemy of all mankind.”
Billy, I thought the duty of a Christian was to reflect the love of Jesus Christ to all of his brothers and sisters, to turn the other cheek, and ” But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven…” Why is it that so many who call themselves Christians drool with bloodlust for killing and warmaking? Don’t they actually read their bibles? Or is is that they just ignore the parts that do not suit them? What is this insane American militarism and love of weapons and weaponry? How does the American Christian family have so many members whose fundamental philosophy is so antithetical to the teachings of Christ? Where does all of the hate come from?
The Bible says the Jews are God’s chosen people. It does not say Christians are chosen, nor does it say Muslims or Hindus are chosen.
How do we as Christians then save ourselves? God will save us from Hell if we defend and serve the Jews, his Chosen People. The highest point in Heaven is reserved for God and the Jews. Christians who are worthy, those who defended Zion, will be reserved a place below God and his Chosen People. The rest will burn in hell.
If both my sons die in Iraq it will be for the holiest, most righteous cause, in defense of the Jewish People.
If a building was burning, I would rescue the Jewish children inside before my own. This is what it means to be a true Christian, a defender and servant of the Chosen People.
Bill are you a real person? I have never met a real parent who valued the life of another’s child over his own. (I think you are some Zionist settler in Hebron just pretending to be an American Christian and are chuckling that the Goyim are falling for it.)
But if you are serious: You think Heaven is segregated? The Jews get the Penthouse and the Goyim get the mid-level apartments? What a primitive you are!
Funny how Bill Cutty forgets his own name. First Billy, then Bill. Ok, Billy-Bill is an impostor. (Only an impostor would give half of his income to the Jews in order to be saved by Jesus. Only half !! Come on! Sorry but it takes a little more than that to impress Jesus! Try 75 percent for starters.)
Anyway, Bill Cutty, IIRC, is the real name of Bill the Butcher, ie Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York, who delivered one of the greatest lines in cinema:
“I took the father, now I’ll take the son. You tell young Vallon I’m gonna paint Paradise Square with his blood. Two coats. ”
That performance was the “I could have been a contender” of this decade. Simply amazing.
You may call me William, Billy, or Bill. I am real and my faith in God is unbreakable. My duty as a Christian is to serve all Jews, even should they be “self hating jews” like yourselves.
My family has donated over $100,000 to Jewish charities over past 14 years. When the Rabbi visits our church to collect donations we give whatever is left over after paying for rent and food. My yearly income is only 35,000 and my wife earns far less than that. I am a janitor and she works at wal-mart. We could have sent our kids to college for that sum of money, but chose as a matter of sacred faith to give it to God’s Chosen People so that they may live in the Promised Land.
Bill Cutty : you’re either the stupidest guy on the face of the planet (supplanting Doug Feith), or else you’re a parody.
Which is it?
William, Billy, or Bill: Now I know what Karl Marx, one of God’s Chosen People, meant when he said that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Let’s examine your logic. Your love of Jesus commands you to sacrifice your money and, possibly, your sons for people who don’t believe in Jesus. Sigh. I guess Natural Selection will work this out…..
Well, Bill, your last post sounds great. I also donate to Jewish charities and to certain Jewish religious organizations–time as well as money. I appreciate your generosity.
Unfortunately, I don’t think you’ve adequately distinguished between “helping Jews” and “hurting Arabs”. The Occupations in Iraq and the Palestinian Territories have at best mixed results for us Jews, but both are are devastating to the native populations.
Let me tell you, as someone who is hardly a “self-hating Jew” but is proud of his Judaism–your indifference to the cries of Arab children does not help Jews. It does not help Jews worldwide to “repair the world”, which the prophet Isaiah teaches as the reason the Messiah is not yet here. It does not help make good on the idea stated clearly in the Bible that “ALL men were created in God’s image”. Finally, given the Jews’ history of expulsions and persecutions, your dissmissiveness of others’ expulsions and persecutions does not help us; next time, it could be us again.
Judaism is one of the longest-running religions on Earth right now. And not through empire.
Well said, Shlomo. Why aren’t you the voice of the majority?
Because I’m too young to be a major political figure yet. Maybe when I’m older 😉
I used to live in the South. There are quite a few “Billys” there; in the rest of the nation too, but concentrated in what Mencken some 80 years ago hilariously termed The Sahara of the Bozart.
The dumbing down of America isn’t just because uneducated 3rd World immigrants are flooding in (shades of Imprial Rome). It”s also that the Billys are replacing themselves birthratewise, while the non-Billys are not having enough babies to keep their genes going.
And in the American Sahara there are plenty of preachers getting rich preaching this parculiar kind of Zioism to the yokels.
Requiescat In Pace, America
A U.S. supported coup is NOT POSSIBLE. Not even close to being possible.
This war is going to be handed off to the next president, a Democrat who will keep the seat warm for Jeb.
The Democrats will leave Iraq. How they leave Iraq will determine Iraq’s future. If they negotiate a peace with Iran and Syria, the chances for long-term success are more likely.
A quick exit will result in hard times for Iraq.
The Republicans will point to the Democratic failure and rally around Jeb.
The winner of THAT election will determine whether Iraq is salvagable in its current form.
Whoever Billy seems to be and where he is from, i’ll pray for him as a christian. I hope he heals his soul, because nothing that comes out of his mind seems to make any real sense.
In this world, christians have become too divided into different denominations. One preaches sometimes the complete opposite of the other, even while using the same book. Christians in the U.S have lost the reality of their faith and digresed into a politcized religion. We need to understand what has happened and remember what religious fanatism does to people. And for that, you have to read some history, but then that’s something else that Americans lack entirely. Frankly, i don’t blame them, it’s not really encouraged in american society. No wonder why, everyone raises their hand when there is a call for WAR.
I have my faith and profess it onto no one. It is an indiviual’s choice. I don’t feel going to church constitutes a necessity to be a christian. I’m sure i have more faith than any of those supposed preachers of the south. I live on the basic principles of the bible and i have lived very well.
To come back to Billy, i would not and will never put Jews in front of my children. Everyone protects their own children as a priority. If you don’t do so, i can assume that you are a unbeliever. Our children are our future, no matter how you see it. We need to set things straight here, the Jews have their ideology and their tradition. The rapprochement of certain christian entities with Zionism is dead wrong. These christian organizations have meddled too much in America’s policy toward Israel. Religion should never be assembled with policy. Religion affects policy negatively and the crusades have amply proven the point. No matter how much money or determination, the irony of life always seems to laugh back at those who want to change the world under the name of “religion”.
We could say that Israel represented a strong ally against communism in the past, but as of now, there is no more reason for this anymore. We cannot, as a nation, become too passionate and attached to another country. These are the words of Benjamin Franklin, i’m sure some of you know about him. We can have allies, but we must not forget that Israel is located amongst many arab countries that do not necessarily love Israel. Israel is a modern day creation, with regards to the region. Most of the Arab countries never lived with borders, the region was inhabited by nomadic people and several kingdoms. The Jews may have had the right in their book, but in modern day, Israel is a created land, not necessarily a country. It still lives and continues to appropriate land, so in some way, has not finished creating itself with permanent borders. These actions are noticed in the mIddle-east, but less publicized here in the U.S, due to some bias in our news organizations.
We cannot continue to kid ourselves and allienate the rest of the world, we being Israel and the U.S. One day, as the U.S loses its supremacy, Israel will find itself alone without a big brother to shoulder her, and furthermore lost without a purpose. As David Walker points out that the world has drastically changed in recent years, the U.S is experiencing symptoms of the end of the Roman Empire. I can second that, for I have written and researched an entire paper on this rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. No country stays eternally powerful in our ages. NONE. The Zionism dream will then just vanish into thin air, once we witness this decline in the U.S hegemony in the world.
Zionism is to judaism what the Ku klux klan was to Christianism. It has become too fanatical and based on anti-semitism towards the Palestinians and whoever steps in the way of any Zionists. I’m starting to realize how these same Zionists are creating havoc here in the United States. Many concerned and logical people are realizing this, and one day, as for everything, this phenomenon will have consequences…
I just hope we can rid ourselves of certain malignant entities, so we may prosper as a world. But for that, we must read our past, so we don’t repeat the same errors.
This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title s. Thanks for informative article
Good summary about s! I enjoy your posts.
I enjoy reading your stuff
Found your site by accident but it is very nice
great stuff – cu