WhirledView

Bulldozers In Jerusalem: The Mayor to the Rescue

By PLS

Did you note this little—ahem!—coincidence about ten days ago?

Fatah and Hamas leaders were in Mecca trying to quell virtual civil war between Palestinians, an urgent and delicate negotiation conducted under the stern eye of Saudi King Abdullah. Meanwhile, the Israelis started archaeological excavations in preparation for a little repair work affecting access to the Temple Mount, which is sacred to Muslims as well as Jews.

You could say it was past time for the project to be underway. A snowstorm, in 2004, had damaged an old access ramp, rendering it unsafe, according to the Israelis. At some point, the structure would have to be repaired or replaced.

Yet two years or more had already elapsed, which suggests a project not in priority position on Israel’s construction to-do list. So why did the digging around the walls of the Temple Mount get underway when it did?

Consider this. Israel and the Israeli army are still smarting from the totally unanticipated humiliation of losing a short war with Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer. How gratifying it must have been, in recent months, for the more belligerent Israeli hawks to sit back and watch Fatah and Hamas elements killing one another on the streets of Gaza—even on the less volatile West Bank. So long as Palestinians were at odds, Israel could postpone hard decisions affecting whether and how to withdraw major Jewish settlements from the still occupied territories, whether and how to render monies owed to the Palestinian Authority.

But suddenly Hamas and Fatah were making nice to one another. So how to undermine the outbreak of peace among Palestinian factions? One way would be to start mucking around in the vicinity of the Temple Mount which is crowned by the Al Aqsa mosque. Any Middle East watcher could predict trouble. In such case, not only would the Israelis be able to argue, not for the first time, that Palestinians are incapable of settling issues peaceably with Israel, they might be able to rekindle the quarrel between the two major Palestinian factions. After all, Hamas and Fatah have taken very different positions vis-à-vis the legitimacy of the Israeli state. With luck, the Israelis could sit back and watch the fun, secure in the status quo.

Time Out for “Duet for One”

By PHK

Last Saturday I saw Tom Kempinski’s “Duet for One” at SolArts, one of Albuquerque, New Mexico’s little theaters.

Actually, “Duet for One” is a drama for two – not one - and the production I saw of it, was riveting. The story is simple and tragic. It is that of a woman named Stephanie Abrahams, a 33 year old concert violinist who has contracted multiple sclerosis at the peak of her career. Her composer husband sends her to psychiatrist Dr. Alfred Feldman to help her come to terms with her loss of meaning in life. The play revolves around Abrahams’ sessions with the German doctor (are all psychiatrists German she confronts him?) who asks the difficult questions that force Abrahams to reveal her innermost feelings and anxieties to herself, the “good doctor” and, of course, the audience.

As drama critic Barry Gaines of The Albuquerque Journal wrote in a rave review that appeared on Tuesday, February 13, “clearly the director and cast make a major difference in the play’s impact and reception. Three of our city’s best theatrical artists provide a riveting evening of theater at Sol Arts. Director Paul Ford has done more than make sure his actors move about the stage and address both portions of the audience. He has elicited complexly shaded and toned performances from Kristen Loree and Ray Orley. They both perform their best work that I have seen.”

I agree. And I saw the same performance.

I have also seen Orley perform in, or direct, a number of plays over the years as far back as 1979-80 when we both served as U.S. Foreign Service Officers in the American Embassy Moscow's Cultural Section as well as Loree and Orley’s performances in “A Piece of My Heart” at SolArts in August 2005. That too was a thought-provoking and well performed play – but “Duet for One” tops it by far.

What Airport Security Is Doing To Us

by CKR

Seems like we’re getting a new story every week about the disaster that American air travel is becoming. More lost baggage and fewer flights on time. Bankruptcies and coming out of bankruptcy. A mother thrown off a flight for breastfeeding her baby in the window seat near the back of the plane. Film for the television show “Lost” ruined by screening x-rays. TSA trying to collect $196 million for its services from the airlines, who say it's not their dime.

At Alaska’s Ted Stevens Airport, a man bound for a Disneyland vacation with his family found out at the last minute that if you land on a penalty square, you have to go back to screening. Do not pass “Go,” do not collect $200. Just take off your shoes. He made the plane despite the best efforts of the TSA screeners.

And the Brits, Mancunians in particular, are trying to devise new ways of not having to toss those dangerous liquids in the trash. A fellow in Manila got irritated by too many requests to go back through the metal detector, and took off his pants.

But what bothers me most about airport security is what it’s doing to how we think about ourselves and each other. I’ve gone through several stages and reached a new one during last week’s trip. Shortly after 9/11, when they started the messages over the PA system, “If you think your baggage has been tampered with, please notify an airline representative or law enforcement,” I jumped every time and instinctively looked around for someone to notify. I had had to leave the locks off my luggage, and I knew that TSA was tampering with it, and who knows who else behind the scenes. Definitely not safe. Then I would reboot: the ones who are tampering with your baggage, Cheryl, are the ones making the announcement. Oh.

A New Arms Control Website

by CKR

There’s an organization in northern New Mexico that lobbies for arms control treaties, like the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and for generally decreasing the numbers of nuclear weapons in the world. It also provides public education in related issues, mainly through talks by experts in the field. It’s been in existence since the 1980s, although part of its ancestry goes back to the end of World War II.

Some of the people in it have participated directly in the development of nuclear weapons. Casual talk around the table may recount time in the airplanes picking up dust from the first Soviet nuclear tests or how an American surface test looked from six miles out.

Their activity, up until now, has been primarily in northern New Mexico and with the New Mexico Congressional delegation.

Today that changes.

The Los Alamos Committee on Arms Control and International Security now has a website. It’s in its early stages of development, but we have big plans for more.

I hope you’ll check it out.

Tuesday Signs of Spring Blogging

by CKR

Look what showed up as the snow melted away! But we're expecting more snow today and tomorrow.

And Then There Were Two in the Axis of Evil? - Updated

by CKR

So says the Washington Post: N. Korea Agrees to Nuclear Disarmament

That's heady, particularly after the New York Times's gloom that an instant solution seemed not to be forthcoming.

Negotiations on a step-by-step deal that the Bush administration hopes will lead North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program appeared near collapse on Sunday over North Korea’s demands for huge shipments of fuel oil and electricity before agreeing to a schedule for turning over its nuclear weapons and fuel.

Apparently Jim Yardley and David Sanger had never seen North Korea throw a tantrum before, and they were shocked, shocked!

Jim Yardley in today's Times is more optimistic. What a difference a day makes! Or is it that David Sanger is the crabby one?

The truth probably lies in the murky regions between the MSM's bipolar fits. The deal is still fragile, and there is much more negotiation to come. One of the more hopeful signs is that the United States has agreed to consider normalization of relations between the two countries. One of the less hopeful signs is that a treaty to end the Korean War (yes, that one, in the early 1950s) hasn't been mentioned.

The deal looks a lot like the Agreed Framework that the Clinton administration negotiated in 1994. Its breakup could be attributed to actions on both sides, but the continuing stalemate to the Bush administration's allergy to negotiating. From today's Times article:

Even before it was signed in Beijing , John R. Bolton, who left his post as American ambassador to the United Nations two months ago, denounced the accord. ''I think that this deal with North Korea undercuts the sanctions resolution'' that he pushed through in October at the United Nations Security Council, after the North's nuclear test, CNN reported.

Indeed a terrible thing not to be able to have sanctions.

But there may be more setbacks, which should cheer John up. Not to mention that these things can take a long time.

The Los Angeles Times has a more balanced report than the other two. And Steve Clemons worries about what deal may have been made with America's own axis of evil.

Paul Kerr has the agreement itself.

Updated (02/13/07): Background on North Korea from Richard Bernstein and six factors behind the agreement from Joseph Cirincione.

Who is to Blame for Many of those Deaths?

By PLS

US military public affairs officers (and the people they speak for) often sound simultaneously whiney and amazed when they report that their opponents in Iraq—be they insurgents or militia or Al Qaeda or whatever—change tactics and weapons at least as deftly as American forces do.

Given the fairly broad distribution of intelligence in the human population, why are they so surprised?

A contributing fallacy, it seems to me, is that optimistically denigrating the enemy comes all too naturally to the war-fighting trade. There's the fool-the-enemy matter of bluffing, off course. And, when risking your life (or asking others to do so) it’s nice to feel confident about succeeding and living to tell the tale. When confidence is built on severely underrating the enemy, however, it induces a form of fool’s courage. Over-confidence is one reason why wars get lost.

Recently there was an intriguing bit of show and tell involving allegedly Iran-supplied explosive devices that are very good at destroying Humvees and the like. The demo was probably designed to fuel some sort of war fever against Iraq’s neighbor, but the WaPo has reminded us that there’s a good (as in very convincing) reason why so many Americans are dying on the road. Too many of them are forced to travel in vehicles that still aren’t properly armored. And the enemy, not being stupid, has noticed.

Imagine! We’re over three years into this war and the troops still aren’t equipped or protected for the job they’re supposed to do. No wonder the Pentagon is trying to deflect the public’s anger onto Iran. Seems to me we should direct more fury at our own war-mongers, those in the White House and the Pentagon and the thoughtless think tanks and the conservative media parrots, the whole totally interlocked neo-con coterie that deceived the American public into rooting for an unnecessary and unjustified war.

Am I asking for too much? Well, this war has now lasted about as as long as World War II, which the US entered in a badly under-equipped condition. In no time at all, back then, US industry was turning out ships, tanks, planes, etc., by the hundreds. Flash forward. In double the time the Bush administration hasn't managed to produce enough armor for a few thousand Humvees. So, no. It's the Bush administration that hasn't been asking for enough protection for the fighters the rest of us are supposed to be supporting so uncritically.

Our clever enemies do what an intelligent analyst would expect them to do; they acquire and plant ever more effective explosive devices, whatever the provenance. Meanwhile, our own government sends American soldiers into battle so poorly equipped that many die who might have survived.

Ali Larijani Speaks

by CKR

The sources that said that Larijani canceled his speech turned out to be wrong. Like Ahmadinejad, he didn’t say any more about the nuclear program, so there may not be any progress there.

He did say, however, that Iran is ready to solve its nuclear issues with the International Atomic Energy Agency in three weeks. That’s what India’s Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee was urging in his visit to Iran last week.

Larijani repeated President Ahmadinejad’s statement that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons and that its program is not a threat to Israel (Canada, Pakistan news sources).

Javier Solana made no progress in talks with Larijani on the EU3 negotiations after more positive expectations.

If you've been clicking, you may be wondering why none of the links above are to US news sources. Here’s what I found, via Google News, from the US: CBS, Forbes, International Herald Tribune, San Diego Union-Tribune. The first three are basically all the same AP story. And here's a more complex article from Britain’s Guardian.

It’s hard to know what’s really going on. The news coverage is so polarized that reading between the lines is an exercise in imagination. I'd like to find a copy of Larijani's speech. Here’s one analysis, from Australia, that suggests that Iran has decided that silence about its nuclear program serves it better than loud celebrations. The Iranians are as good at spin as anyone. And they seem to have figured out, along with Vladimir Putin, that it’s easy to look peaceloving when America is beating the war drums.