WhirledView

V is for Victory - C is for Caliphate

By PHK

Fact or Fairy Tale

Caliphate: the office of the caliph; the land ruled by a caliph. (Websters’ Unabridged Deluxe Second Edition, p. 257); Caliph: title taken by Muhammad’s successors to signify the political and religious leader of the Islamic community. (Websters, p. 257)

Caliphate has become one of the Bush Administration’s favorite words this season according to New York Times reporter Elizabeth Bumiller in her December 12 White House Letter. Threat of Al Qaeda’s establishment – or reestablishment - of THE CALIPHATE is a core of the administration’s full court press to turning around souring U.S. public opinion towards the continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Bin Laden’s long-term goal, according to the W administration’s talking points and depending upon who’s espousing them, is to establish - or reestablish - “The Caliphate” from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This has become the White House’s latest justification, although Cheney used it earlier - for keeping American troops as fodder for insurgents in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Or at least until shortly before the 2006 elections when the administration might yet again declare Victory – another pet word in the Oval Office’s speech writers’ lexicon – and bring troops home because winning an election at home will ultimately become more important than continuing to fight an expensive, unpopular war of choice abroad.

Rewriting Islamic History

Vice President Cheney, National Security Council Advisor Hadley, and the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tell us that the terrorists’ aka Al Qaeda’s goal is to take over Iraq, turn it into an Islamic state and then use it as a base to expand Islamic rule over lands that once were part of a huge, Islamic Empire that Cheney claimed, stretched from Portugal to Indonesia. This, we’re warned, is just the first step en route to Islamic world domination fifty years hence.

This latest propaganda push from a beleaguered administration is based on the contents of a letter dated July 9, 2005, intercepted and translated sometime in the summer by coalition forces and posted on the website of the Office of the Director (John Negroponte) of National Intelligence on October 11, 2005. According to the U.S. Administration, the letter was written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s right hand man, to the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the vicious Jordanian Palestinian Islamic terrorist known for beheading foreign journalists, aid-workers and other innocents caught in the civil war’s maelstrom. Yet given the way unsubstantiated rumors swirl around the Middle East like a desert sand storm as well as the administration’s propensity for fabricating news in and about Iraq – how much credence or importance should be placed on the contents of that letter? I don’t know, but I wish I did. Do you?

A Great Gift: No More Torture

By PLS

Hurrah—and thanks to all the Americans, individual and institutional, who have taken an unequivocal stand against torture for the past few years.

Above all, thanks to Senator John McCain. Despite enormous pressure, especially from the Vice President, he stood his ground. As a result, we will have a law expressly prohibiting cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of suspects by US personnel. The law will apply to prisoners held in the US or abroad.

Think of it! No more Guantanamos. No more Abu Graibs. No more excruciating embarrassment when the US Ambassador presumes to lecture the Iraqi Provisional Government about torturing prisoners in its custody. No more wanting to hide in shame when the European Parliament investigates the alleged existence of secret US prisons in Eastern Europe.

I can almost imagine representing the US with some sense of self-respect again.

But some loose ends need to be cleared up.

Condoleeza Rice needs to clarify the evasive language with which she discussed renditions before, during and after her visit to Europe earlier this month.

We need to find out what those rogue representatives of the US, CIA or otherwise, promised to Poland and Romania (or any other countries) in return for allowing the US to operate secrete prisons on their territory.

We need to keep a careful watch on Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He vows to prevent a vote on the anti-torture provisions unless the new regs permit "the same high level of effective intelligence gathering." He could sneak in a loophole large enough to allow waterboarding or worse.

We need to know the fate of the prisoners hastily transferred from those East European prisons to North Africa. We also need an accounting of any other renderings. Who is where and how precisely are they being treated?

Think of it. Once torture's no longer possible, we'll be able to permit the unannounced, anywhere-on-the-premises inspection of detention centers demanded by the International Red Cross and other human rights organizations. We'll have nothing to hide anymore.

Once again, the US will be able to speak out for human rights and not be met with a sneer or charges of hypocrisy.

I can't imagine a better Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza present.

The Friendly Skies of the Air Marshals Come to a Location Near You

by CKR

Rigoberto Alpizar's death has quickly vanished from the news, but TSA's rollout of its "Viper Squads" seems poorly timed.

Now you can have those friendly armed air marshals riding next to you on the local bus or subway.

However, according to today's WaPo, "some of the locations" have asked TSA to hold off on this idea. Washington's metro was the only transit system named in the story. Is this from anonymous sources?

I think it was back in the mid-seventies, as the terrorist threat seemed to be growing, that the Los Alamos Protective Force decided to do live simulations out among the scientists. Coming back from the cafeteria one day, I saw uniformed men with rifles running around. I turned back toward the cafeteria with the intention getting as far away from them as possible.

We had been warned that such things would be happening, but even blank ammunition can damage people. Although the Pro Force was trained to use its firearms, mixing guns with untrained civilians seemed a poor idea. Several years later, a mistake at the firing range--live ammunition replacing blanks--resulted in the death of one member of the Pro Force.

The Pro Force gave up the simulation idea after one or two exercises. They never said why.

I'll reiterate what I said last week: The desire for perfect safety from terrorists provides its own set of dangers. We are trading one risk for another. We must discuss our priorities in these areas and recognize that perfect safety means that some innocent civilians will die. The number will increase as undercover people with guns are placed in more public transportation.

And I'm wondering who thought up that catchy name, Viper Squads. Just the sort of folks you'd like to have sitting next to you on the bus, right?

Dread and Relief: The President's Speech

By PLS

I was on my way to the cleaners a couple of hours ago, not the cleaners that land you in bankruptcy, the ones that take spots out of pants and put starch into shirts. I was tuned into PBS, as usual, to take the curse out of running errands, when I heard the President’s voice, in his most beguiling, just-folks, short-simple-sentences, never-pronounce-an-"ing," lay-it-on-thick-with-"gonna"-and-"wanna," common-sense mode. It sounded so sincere, so heartfelt. Oh God, I thought, here he’s delivering a powerful honest speech and I’ve just badmouthed him badly.

All the old atavistic feelings came back: I really want to respect the president, I want to love this country, I want to be able to be a cheerleader myself. After all, I spent 20 plus years promoting a once terrific country that I hardly recognize now that I’m home and in the midst of it day in and day out.

Unfortunately for the country, I won’t have to crawl under the bed in shame and eat my words.

Five Strikes and You're Out---Maybe

By PLS

The President has been in cheerleader mode lately, spurring his team on to victory. He will accept nothing less than victory, he says, from his safe position on the sidelines. And like any good cheerleader he has plenty of scorn to heap on the opposition—the opposition being, in this case, not just the viler sort of Iraqi insurgents, but any American who disagrees with him and his party.

He and his cheerleading team have called the dissidents nasty names. Disloyal traitors, for example. And backstabbers of the troops. Bush and his people did their darnedest to swift-boat the character of Congressman Murtha, too. For the first time, the character smearing didn’t succeed. A good sign, perhaps.

But that’s what cheerleaders do. They don’t fight. They make a lot of noise. They rouse the team (or mob) spirit. They get people so excited they’ll do things they’d never do otherwise, such as potentially re-endorsing a Patriot Act that seriously undermines civil liberties.

Like any good cheerleader the President is dedicated to victory, to winning. In baseball or in football we know what winning means. We know what’s illegal and when the game is over. But Cheerleader Bush has such a fluid, ever changing definition of victory, it’s becoming clear that he hardly knows the name of the game from moment to moment, let alone any rules that may apply.

First off, the Iraq war wasn’t even going to be a real war. It was going to be a waltz into Baghdad where the wholly pacified and grateful country would be handed over to Ahmed Chalabi in a shower of rose petals. Victory!

The game didn’t work out that way. Iraq descended into chaos and disorder.

Then the war was going to be definitively won after a democratic constitution was negotiated and ratified. The day of the purple fingers arrived and Cheerleader Bush declared victory!

But the game didn’t work out that way. The country descended into Civil War.

Tuesday Snow Blogging

by CKR

We woke up to a light covering of snow this morning.

I am trying to figure out an optimum combination of removing the snow from my driveway and allowing the sun to melt it.

Unfortunately, all the photos I wanted to take to illustrate my experiment became unavailable as I was working because the snow melted.

I guess I did it right.

An Intriguing Proposition

by CKR

The Los Angeles Times may be overdrawing the situation.

Iran on Sunday offered the United States a share in building a new nuclear power plant in an apparent effort to curb U.S. opposition to its atomic program.

"America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said at a news conference.

A statement at a news conference inviting a country with which your country doesn't have diplomatic relations isn't quite an offer or an invitation. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that there was also a feeler put out behind the scenes, one that isn't reported in the Times story.

Iraqi expectations could be that the US will turn down the offer, giving them more ammunition to claim that the US is not interested in reasonable negotiations.

Or perhaps it is a way to try to break the impasse. The US clearly is interested in giving its nuclear industry something to do. No nuclear plants are being built in the US, but the deal with India would provide such opportunities. Why not Iran, too?

On Hughes On Rose

By PHK

The best thing about Karen Hughes’ interview with Charlie Rose on Thursday evening, December 8, was her classy, made-for-TV-appearance, purple top with black buttons. Kudos to her buyer and fashion consultant: That sophisticated blouse’s sheen sparkled beautifully under the lights. It’s much more flattering than the faded yellow Hughes wore in the photo that Rose posted on his website to advertise the program or the green one she had on for her official photo that appears on the U.S. Department of State Senior Officials’ page. Note to the Department’s media staff: Hughes should wear purple in future photos. Not only does the color flatter her, but it also lends a regal quality – useful in cowing pesky critics. Suggestion to props: next time exchange the coffee cup for a scepter.

Ms. Hughes, otherwise, came across as the glib iron lady with the frosted hair.

I can see why George Bush chose her to be his spokesperson here in the good old U.S. of A.

Margaret Thatcher the second, aka Karen Hughes, said all the right things – and Rose didn’t push her as hard as he might have – to make Americans who don’t know much about the world beyond our borders and evidently think torture and renditions of non-Americans based too often on bad intelligence are just fine - confident in the President’s “war against terror” “victory in Iraq” leadership. After all W’s overall approval ratings in the latest IPSOS-AP poll rose from 35 to 42 percent so the administration must be doing something right in the battle for hearts and minds being waged here at home. The decline in gasoline prices since their $3.00 high in November may also have something to do with it.

Whether Hughes’ same kind of performance sells well abroad, or for that matter outside Texas, I’m skeptical: the news reports of her trips to the Muslim world in October and November were far from complimentary.

I won’t critique Hughes’ entire interview on the Charlie Rose Show and since I object to PBS interview programs that are “pay for view,” I didn’t review the video thereafter as I had planned. Here, however, are four issues I found particularly disturbing in Rose’s interview with W’s chief propagandist:

• What polls? Whose polls?

According to Hughes, opinion polls in Iraq demonstrate the Iraqi people’s stong confidence in the American occupation. The Iraqis, she assures us, affirm that the country is better off than it was under Saddam Hussein. It would have been nice if she’d identified the polls or poll, how the figures were broken down by religious and ethnic group, how the questions were phrased and, for that matter, whether it or they were conducted outside the Green Zone. Makes a difference because it’s pretty clear from the Iraqi religious and ethnic civil war of which the U.S. is squarely in the middle that there are strong differences of opinion among Iraqis on a number of fundamental issues. These differences are significant enough to have caused Iraq’s many combatants to haul out the long knives and the IEDs and use them repeatedly against each other as well as our troops.

Reports of an apparently authoritative poll conducted in August 2005 by an Iraqi university research team that did not know it was collecting data for the British Ministry of Defense which had commissioned the poll, suggests that while a majority of Iraqis may be glad to be rid of Saddam,* they clearly also want to be rid of the American and British militaries. Further, from 45 to 65 percent of respondents said that they supported the attacks against British and American troops and “fewer than one percent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve the security in their country.” This is according to the October 23, 2005 report in London’s Sunday Telegraph which broke the story.

Interesting to note that Hughes mentioned only Iraqi attitudes towards Saddam and ignored other responses that failed to fit into her view of the state of Iraqi public opinion. A convenient memory lapse?

• “Victory” in Iraq

Hughes told Rose that “Victory” in Iraq – W’s most recently designed-for-the-US-media-pet-mantra – means the US won’t leave until the country is at peace and democratic. At least W can pronounce the word “victory.” Unlike “nuclear” which he still can’t say right.