Sen. Biden's "soft partition" plan gains momentum

This according to Helene Cooper who cites an administration official stating "The truth is, we could end up close to the Biden-Gelb proposal." Though the administration is still behind the surge, there are clear indications that we are moving toward a Biden-Gelb approach, Cooper cites the positive reception to aspects of the plan from not only administration officials (as cited above), but also Foreign policy analysts, Capitol Hill politicians. I reviewed Sen. Biden's plan earlier this year here.

The arming of Sunni tribes and non-al Qaeda insurgents fits in this pattern, by allowing Sunnis (in this example) room to run their own security apparatus in Sunni majority regions. For obvious reasons, the Shiite led government isn't too happy about this.

The current plan moves toward a Biden-Gelb approach in decentralizing security in Sunni regions, devolving power to native forces, and moving away from using a largely Shiite army and police force to quell violence in largely Sunni areas. That approach has not worked, as many of these security forces have become infiltrated by Shiite militias bent on avenging years of oppression by Saddam Hussein and/or attacks by Sunni insurgents (particularly al Qaeda in Iraq) on Shiite civilians.

According to Cooper, the State Department in now pushing a proposal to "build up provincial reconstruction teams out in the Iraqi provinces, with the goal of strengthening local tribal leaders," further devolving power to the regions from the central government.

In language reminiscent of Tom Barnett, Sen. Biden has argued that "We're going to get there (soft-partition) either by our action or by our inaction; what we need to do is to manage this transition." Already he has gone to the UN Security Council to seek support for such a change in policy and was well received, with at least one person stating "What took you guys so long?".

As I pointed out in my review of Sen. Biden's plan, there are still some issues that have to be addressed, including the problem of how to deal with militias such as the Mahdi army which though primarily Shiite, are unlikely to accept such a partition quietly. This, in addition to the very treacherous waters we will have to navigate to get Iran, Syria, and Turkey to accept an autonomous Kurdish region in the north, not to mention the difficult issue of allocation of oil revenues. For a more in-depth look at the problems I found with Sen. Biden's plan, please click here. Already, Maliki is threatening to arm (as if this was not already happening) Shiite militias to counter U.S. efforts to arm Sunnis. So any partition plan, even a soft one will be fraught with a lot of problems from the start. Still, this now seems inevitable given the fact that as Cooper points out, Sunnis and Shiites (despite celebrating Iraq's soccer championship together) have shown little signs of seeking reconciliation.

What I like about Sen. Biden's plan is that it allows us to move away from the win-loose/stay the course-cut and run arguments heard so often with regard to Iraq. Instead it provides a real strategy for managing the conflict, allowing us to disengage responsibly, as well as giving us space to re-craft our strategy in fighting the much larger GWOT (or long war, or whatever it is we are calling it now). It's good to see it gaining some momentum.

As an aside, given how much time and effort Sen. Biden is giving one of the most important issues in our country, not to mention the 2008 campaign, (and the fact that by all accounts he has performed very well in every single debate so far) it sometimes baffles me that he is not taken more seriously by the media or voters. As E.J. Dionne Jr. asked following the early debates in June "Does Joe Biden have to set himself on fire to get serious attention?"

Read More...

Snippet only...

The Lions of the Two Rivers give Iraqis a reason to celebrate

Earlier this week I blogged about how Iraq's soccer team was demonstrating that Iraqis of all ethnic/religious backgrounds could work together to achieve their potential. Today was the final game in the Asia Cup between 3-time champion Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

With this header, Younis Mahmoud Khalaf clinched a 1-0 victory and Iraq's first ever Asia Cup championship.

While the team celebrated in Jakarta (where the final took place), Iraqis of all stripes ran out into the streets of Iraq to celebrate their country's victory, not as Shiite, or Sunni or Kurd, but as Iraqis.

This picture is priceless because it shows what would be possible if Iraqis worked together instead of against each other. Given daily events in Iraq, including last week's car bombings targeting Iraqis who were celebrating their teams victory in the semi-finals against South Korea, they deserved something to cheer about. The Iraqi team, painfully aware of the violence that is tearing their country apart, wore black armbands to commemorate the victims of last week's car bombs.

In an indication of the mood of Iraqis toward our campaign in Iraq, Khalaf (the goal scorer in today's game) said that he wanted U.S. troops out, "Today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but out." That of course, is just one player but in Iraq he is now a national hero. As Sabah Shaiyal, a 43-year-old police officer in Baghdad told the Associated Press, "The players have made us proud, not the greedy politicians...Once again, our national team has shown that there is only one, united Iraq." Of course, that also says a lot about the state of Iraqi politics, people don't respect their political leadership and owe it no allegiance.

Iraqis may yet unite and work together for a common future, this of course, is still far from certain. If Brazilian coach Jorvan Viera proved anything, however, it is that with the right leadership, it can be done. CNN reported earlier this week that Viera would be leaving the post after today's game. In that report it noted that Viera was exasperated with the way things were done in Iraq, mainly that they had no existent Iraqi league or bureaucracy to manage the day to day affairs of the team. It was so bad, that he felt as if he was doing everything, while also fighting everyone. As if that were not enough, he also had to contend (at the beginning) with poor facilities, and rifts between the team's Sunnis, Shiites players. Now, however, these players reportedly feel as if they have a special bond, not as part of distinct ethnic groups, but as Iraqis. They demonstrated to Iraqis that working together is possible, and also provided them with a reason to celebrate, even if only temporarily.

Update

Adrian at Politics & Soccer wrote on this same subject, focusing on the example of Yugoslavia and how soccer could not prevent the break-up of that country. He also has a bit of "dark" humor on why Iraq was able to win the Asia Cup.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Guantanamo, and the milk of human kindness

I'm so far behind on posting this month, that I am just now getting to this subject. I saw that over at Tdaxp there was a pretty good discussion on the subject of torture. Eddie from Hidden Unities, argued that torture simply did not work, and that as such, having the US engaging in such practices was not only inefficient, but also counter-productive in the type of war we were fighting. Tdaxp took issue with Eddie's argument, mainly because as he saw it, it was falsifiable, meaning that once someone proved that a specific torture technique (say Water Boarding) worked, then Eddie's argument about the efficacy of the use of torture went out the window, allowing many forms of torture if they could be shown to be effective.

I didn't have time when the discussion occurred, so I didn't comment. This is my way of engaging that discussion (even if almost a week late). I tend to think that Eddie and.Tdaxp were talking about two distinct, but related things. Tdaxps focused on the weakness of the argument, and specifically about the efficacy of torture, whereas Eddie was reaching for a larger point about torture in general, mainly the drain it presents for our soft power.

The same day Tdaxp posted on this question, I also read this op-ed by Jackson Diehl, on his visit to Gitmo. In it, Diehl recounts his visit and his observation of an interrogation taking place at the time. Diehl described how the interrogation was so far away from the administration's own characterization of what went on, or could go on once a subject was in US custody. Diehl recounts that the interrogators in this particular instance were two young women, one a translator, the other the interrogator, wearing open toed sandals and short skirts sitting around a table with the man being interrogated. In addition to them, he also noticed that the man had with him, a bag of pistachios; a treat not otherwise available to him. Diehl explains that five years of experience, have taught these interrogators that "the most effective means of collecting intelligence from the "enemy combatants" captured in the fight against al-Qaeda...comes from the milk of human kindness."

GGiven the mismatch between the President's message on interrogation and the reality on the ground in Gitmo, I'm at once relieved and troubled by this. On the one hand, I'm glad that after five years, we've learned that harsh interrogation techniques are not as effective as friendly gestures and kindness. The reason, Diehl tells us is that most al Qaeda and other combatants expect the harsh treatment, and in fact, have survived worst at the hands of governments and warlords far more barbarous than we. What bothers me, is that the administration continues to argue that authority to use the harshest techniques is necessary to break combatants trained to resist them, knowing that our interrogators have learned otherwise. Even if used solely for propaganda purposes (as in, be afraid if you are captured) they knowingly undermine our image and standing in the world. In my view, what we gain from such pronouncements is little compared to what we loose in terms of moral authority and propaganda value.

That said, Tdaxp is right to note the weakness of an argument that relies solely on the efficacy of torture (for the reasons he outlines). However, Eddie also has a point, particularly if this argument is only part of a larger discussion on the subject. He and Tdaxp have been exchanging e-mails on this, and we’ve only been given a window to peek through, courtesy of Tdaxp. After all, efficacy is part of the argument against torture, but is by no means the only. As Tdaxp notes, there are also far more powerful arguments that relate to moral and strategic considerations. In some ways I agree with Tdaxp that the argument about efficacy should not be the first argument presented but one of the last, so that as you finish the argument on torture based on moral and strategic considerations, you end by saying, “besides, it doesn’t work!.”

That is part of the reason why I mention Diehl’s op-ed because it reports on what interrogators have learned, mainly that "approaching a subject in a friendly and businesslike manner, after having studied the subject thoroughly, over time earning his respect makes it harder for the subject to evade the answers to questions" that under duress he would likely resist. In other words, torture is counter-productive and does not really work.

As Diehl acknowledges the techniques he describes take time to work, and in some instances, time may be a luxury we don't have. It is in these instances that the question of torture creeps up again. After all, if we don’t torture, can we justify it if not doing so potentially allows a terrorist strike to proceed that would kill hundreds (if not thousands) of American civilians? For my part, I think the argument about efficacy is linked to the argument about the morality of the use of torture. After all, if it doesn’t work, can we legitimately justify the morality of such an action? But this gets into deeper philosophical territory since in deciding whether torture works or does not work, you have to first make the decision as to whether you can morally justify trying in the first place. This question is one of the hardest questions to address philosophically. If you have a duty to protect one hundred people, and you have ten suspects, one of whom will try to kill them, can you legitimately torture all ten just so that you can find the one? If not, what percentage is acceptable? Could it be legitimately justified if instead of 10, there were only 7, or 6, or 4, or just 2? Does the calculation change if instead of 10, you would have to torture 20, or 30, or more? Or if instead of protecting 100, you had to protect 1,000 or 100,000? At what point would the scale tip in favor of torture? Against? For my part, the efficacy of the action must be taken into account, because if torture does not work, and you are more likely to gain bad information than the information you actually seek, then torture can not be morally justified. In like manner, and as Tdaxp argues, if a technique can be shown to work, at which point do we decide that the action is morally justified? Can it be morally justified, ever? Dielh’s account of what interrogators have learned at Gitmo, seems to indicate that the action does not work. If that is the case, and we already know it to be the case, then torture can no longer be justified.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Cuba, another country ready for the soft-kill

At least according to the slew of articles reporting on Raul Castro's speech, commemorating the start of the Cuban Revolution in 1953. These reports seem to indicate that change is in the air for the Island nation. In his speech, Raul frankly acknowledged problems with the country's agricultural production, economic performance, and even the low wages which are at the heart of people's complaints.

In addition, he has called, once again, for dialogue with Washington. Given the recent spat between Senators' Clinton and Obama over when and how to engage adversaries, the comments seem perfectly timed. Raul, however, made clear that much like the rest of the world, he is looking past the Bush administration and the 2008 elections saying,

"If the next U.S. government puts arrogance aside and decides to talk in a civilized fashion, that is welcome. If not, we are prepared to continue facing their hostile policy for another 50 years." Reuters

In his speech, Raul (talking about the nation's problems) called for "critical and constructive debate to rid Cuba's 90-percent state-owned economy of bureaucratic inefficiencies." He also said that the country needed to produce more of its own food, and cut its reliance on imports, promising reforms to the agricultural sector, as well as a greater opening to foreign investment. The Times reports that fewer dissidents have been arrested since the younger Castro came to power, and that he has the importing of more TVs and even ordered a state newspaper to investigate "the poor quality of service at state-controlled bakeries and other stores."

Raul has also directed the government to pay debts it owed to private farmers and has allowed the prices the state pays for milk and meat to rise. Despite this, the Times reports that the elder Castro remains an important player, and as such Raul cannot move more assertively in with his reform agenda.

Change for our own policy, however, is unlikely to happen soon. Election time, given the importance of Florida to any Presidential contest, is a bad time to begin talking about improving relations with the Communist regime in Cuba. Already the State Department has issued a statement saying that "the dialogue that needs to happen is in Cuba." Tellingly, the article in Reuters article cited above, has a Cuban dissident making the exact same argument as State. Reading this, made me think that maybe Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton's statements during the debate, that they would meet engage diplomatically with the leaders of our adversaries (even if they themselves differed on the manner in which to approach this), achieved one thing; it signaled to the world that the U.S. itself is ready for a new direction. As I said above, it won't come easy, but having maintained the embargo for almost 50 years, it's about time that we look for a better way.

Raul, no matter what many thought is not going away, and neither is the Communist Party and the institutions set up by Fidel. The country has remained stable, and functioning despite his absence, and that is a fact we have to accept it. Barnett has talked about this in his blog, and argued against the very perception that a post-Fidel Cuba would see the collapse of the system he built. He has also blogged on a post-Castro (meaning both brothers) scenario for reconnecting this state to the globalized world. Given Raul Castro's willingness to not only engage the U.S. but also to open up his country to more economic connectivity, it is incumbent on us to exploit that opportunity and give the Cuban people a chance at a better life.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Soccer as the hope of Iraq

As some of you have heard, Iraq beat South Korea yesterday to advance to the Asian cup finals. The celebration in Iraq, however was marred by suicide attacks that killed many Iraqis as they celebrated the countries soccer victory. That however, should not be the focus of the news, since one thing that stood out, more than the violence, was how the victory of the Iraqi soccer team united Iraqis of every background in celebration. As Tony Karon notes in Time, even the Kurds waved Iraqi flags in celebration.

The team is made up of Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis and in some ways can be seen as a reflection of the hope of a future Iraq. The hope, that when Iraqis of all stripes work together, they can achieve great things. Soccer, for the rest of the world is not only about sports, or competition, when national teams face one another, they are in essence representing and defending the honor of their country.

The time article notes that celebrations were widespread in the country, and reunited old friends from different sectarian backgrounds in celebration after not having seen each other in more than two years due to the sectarian violence tearing the country apart. If anything, the celebrations show two things. One, despite the religiously based violence, Iraqis still hold on to a fickle Iraqi identity, and two, even as soccer unites them, there are those who still seek to tear the country apart. The question that remains to be answered is, whether Iraqi identity is strong enough to withstand the challenges arrayed against it, or if like in the case of Yugoslavia (where though the national team would have benefited from its unity as a state) it will still tear itself apart.

As Karon puts it:

Soccer cannot bridge political divides that are based not simply on whether Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds can get along and pass the ball to one another, but on how power and control of territory and resources is to be arranged among them. As beautiful a moment as Iraq's shared celebration may have been, the danger remains that they're less akin to Ivory Coast's example of rapprochement than they are to the legendary Christmas 1914 soccer match on World War I's Western Front. That game, played between German and British soldiers in no man's land amid a remarkable unofficial yuletide truce, expressed the shared humanity among the combatants of both sides. And then they went back to slaughtering each other for another four years.

As a final note, it is interesting that the final match will be against Saudi Arabia. Given the amount of foreign fighters that come from Saudi, and the fact that al Qaeda's rigid ideological roots owe a lot to that country, it's almost as if the soccer match can also be seen as yet another way in which Saudi Arabia stands as an obstacle to the hope that Iraq could be.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Sen. Biden gains more respect

I just came across this article from Blue Hampshire by Mike Caulfield on the CNN/Youtube debate. His conclusion: Biden won. However, that is not the reason why I am posting on this here. Caulfield has an interesting snippet which shows why Biden rises above the other candidates.

Caulfield notes the following:

Finally, the thing he didn't say really moved me, and still moves me. When asked whether they had a family member in the armed forces, none of the other candidates had an answer.

Biden had an answer, but chose not to use it. Biden has a son Beau. He almost lost him in the car accident that took his wife and daughter. He was sworn into office in 1972 while keeping vigil at Beau's hospital bedside.

He now risks losing him again. Beau is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq with his National Guard unit in early 2008. Biden has every reason in the world to get us out as early as possible. The Richardson plan would have the war over before his son ever went.

Yet Biden thinks it will take a year to do it safely. And when given an opportunity to knock it out of the park through calling attention his son Beau's situation, he chose a path of dignity. I respect that.

The actual question was:

QUESTION: Dear Presidential Candidates, see those three flags over my shoulder? They covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son.

Someday, mine will join them.

I do not want to see my youngest sons join them.

I have two questions. By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all U.S. troops be out of Iraq? And how many family members do you have serving in uniform?

Sen. Dodd was the first to answer the question and he noted that he had served in the National Guard and Reserves, and that he had cousins and an uncle who had also served in the past. The question from there moved away from family members currently serving in Iraq to a focus on when troops would come home. Part of the reason was that none of the Democratic candidates (that I'm aware of) has any family members currently serving in Iraq. As the article notes, however, Sen. Biden could have answered that his son was not only in the National Guard (despite having been elected as Delaware's Attorney General) but that his unit is scheduled to go to Iraq in early 2008. Much like Caulfield, that Sen. Biden didn't say this during the debate, even though such an answer would have been entirely appropriate given the question asked, makes me respect him even more.

I do note that I found out about this article from Blue Hampshire through the Joe Biden blog. Does the fact that they highlighted it diminish the point above? Not really. I mean, he had a national audience during the debate and he chose not to use his son's service as a political gimmick, linking to someone else who reported on this doesn't diminish it at all, since the main reason for the link was because Caulfield argued that Sen. Biden won the debate, and not the snippet on his son.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Site News- Yes, once again...

I know, I know, it seems as if I'm always posting on new features for my blog. It's just that there is so much stuff out there to choose from, that inevitably being the amateur techie that I am, I want to try it all. In any case, here are the new features/tools I've added this time around.

First, I created a button you can add to the Google toolbar. The new NYkrinDC button allows you to not only search the content on this blog, but also comes with RSS built in, so that any time I submit a new post, you can go to its directly from the Google Toolbar. The link to the button is now on the right sidebar under Syndication. All you have to do is click on the link and a window will pop-up asking you whether you want to add the button to your Google toolbar. Google provides an easy