Fookpop

2008/01/13

Iran Again

Iran, here we go again. This is from an article published in Harper's Magazine. The link is here:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/02/sb-war-with-ir-1171457451

Anonymous Former CIA Official #1

A former CIA official, who asked to remain unnamed. He was stationed in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War and served in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

I don't think the administration is about to carry out military action. The military does not want to do this. We will lose planes if there is a massive air strike over Iran, we'll have pilots killed and captured. Iran has a lot of ways to hurt us. If they decide to come after uniformed personnel in Iraq, or more easily, civilians and contractors, things could quickly get out of hand. You could have kidnappings or a mass casualty attack—they drove us out of Lebanon in the 1980s; a mass casualty attack like the Marine barracks bombing would likely be the end in Iraq.

But the administration's actions are increasing the chances for an accidental confrontation. People don't realize how small and narrow the Gulf is, especially as you approach the Straits of Hormuz. The tanker/container and related commerce traffic is incredible and it goes on twenty-four hours a day. We've already got one carrier battle group there and now we're going to put in another one, which will add a huge footprint. When you have, on both sides, nineteen-year-olds manning weapons, it's a formula for an accident that could spin out of control.

Here's an example: Every night, members of the Revolutionary Guard pack up their speed boats with rugs and crafts, really pricey stuff. They weave their way through all the traffic on the Gulf and sell the stuff on remote areas of beach just north of Sharjah, Ajman, and Umm al Qaywayn. They off-load and sell their goods and then load up with Jack Daniels, porn, CDs, electronics, satellite receivers, and computers, and weave their way back through traffic to Iran. At 3 a.m. on a moonless night, one of those boats speeding across the Gulf could easily cross the defensive radar signature of a U.S. frigate, and it's going to get shot up. So you have a situation that is essentially an accident, and all of a sudden you have a crisis.

Military action is not the best option. This is not like Iraq's Osirak reactor, which Israel destroyed in 1981. In that case, there was a single target. Iran's nuclear program is dispersed and our intelligence picture is thin because we don't have enough well-placed spies. It would take a massive air strike package with consecutive strikes to hit all the targets. You could hurt them and complicate their activities, but I don't think you could turn off their program.

The way to pressure the Iranian government is through pressure inside Iran and inside Iraq. There's a thirst for information in Iran and we should be bombarding them with accurate information via conventional and unconventional means. We could be using TV and radio broadcasts, the Internet, Wi-Fi networks in Iraq, and underground newspapers to reach Iranians. There are about 60,000 Iranians in the Los Angeles area, many with daily contact with family and colleagues in Iran. Los Angeles is the headquarters for the American media/movie/television apparatus—and yet we're not broadcasting into Iran. Turn them loose! They can produce soap operas, talk shows, news programs, entertainment shows, all in Farsi.

Propagandizing is part of the CIA's mission charter, but the current leadership has decided against it. (They've also decided against covert action, direct action, covert influence, and other active measures.) The agency did it for years in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South America, and other parts of the world during the Cold War, with huge impact. With advances in technology, it's so much easier to do now.

When I started in this business, there was only TV, radio, and print, and it was very hard to influence what was shown on TV. Now you can plant a story on the Internet in a couple of minutes. You want to make Ahmadinejad react to stories—create the perception of a rift between him and the religious leadership and cast it as a problem in the country. The rumor mill works overtime in that part of the world. You'd want nuggets of truth in these stories, aimed at Iranian youth. We should be emphasizing the huge unemployment in Iran, the staleness of the revolution, the age of the mullahs, and how they live very well—their pious lifestyle is all baloney. But doing it requires too much effort, and careers could be risked.

* * *

In other words, it's all W's fault.

=//Turnquest

2008/01/05

Post Iowa, Pre New Hampshire (pt. 1)

Having predicted Iowa pretty much accurately, I finally feel compelled to let loose about this U.S. Presidential campaign, now that's it's somewhat sane to actually talk about it.

First of all, the amount of coverage and focus over the last 6-12 months has been totally overblown and sort of disconcerting. The fact that there were grown women and men arguing passionately on live TV over an election that was two years away is a testament to the broken media in the States.

In any case, I'll start with the results and follow with brief comments about both the winners.

Iowa Caucus 2008 Results

Democrats:

1,781 of 1,781 districts reporting
Obama       37.58
Edwards     29.75
Clinton     29.47
Richardson   2.11
Biden        0.93
Uncommitted  0.14
Dodd         0.02

Republicans:

1,546 of 1,781 districts reporting

Huckabee 34
Romney 25
Thomspon 13
McCain 13
Paul 10
Giuliani 3

History in the Making

Look, I like Barack Obama. If I were to vote on November 4 for one person, it would be him. His policies are not 100% great (whose are?). His experience is scant. Heck, I'm one of the people who agree that he should have waited another four to eight years. His wife is a big target for GOP hit squads wanting to stir up sideshow controversies and distract from the issues. And he has other little vulnerabilities to media attacks. So why the support?

Because he's a good man.

Not that he looks like one, not that he seems nice. He is good. Mr. Obama doesn't have an ounce of wicked manipulative politician in him and that contrast becomes especially obvious when compared to Ms. Clinton.

If Mr. Obama ever did win the whole thing one day, he would make a fine President for the United States and indeed be able to follow up on his promise to offer real change for not only the Executive Office, but for the overall direction and character of the country.

Now having said that, I have very real doubts about his chances in this primary season, let alone in the general. The United States has, as everyone knows, a long, sordid history with the subject of race and with the majority's treatment of persons of African descent. Blacks in the States, though legally "freed" in 1865 by President Lincoln, have continued to suffer incredible discrimination, persecution and downright contempt for decades.

Travel to any major American city and you too will see the absolute reality of what I call
"covert discrimination." Inexorably, the white population will dominate the suburbs, commuter towns and upper-class neighborhoods with their 5-bedroom and two-car garages. Take a stroll in the inner city and downtown areas and suddenly colour reenters the equation. A subway ride on the 2 Line in New York from the Bronx to Lower Manhattan reveals this phenomenon most glaringly. One could describe it as if traveling to a whole new country.

The point is, racism exists in America, and elsewhere, even if no-one wants to admit to it. There are larger forces at work that seek to shape the election. And that simple, bigoted line; "a black man can never become President," tragically, may be the one thing that stops the DNC and the United States at large from electing Barack Obama.

To put it to a sharper point, consider that the last time someone with that sort of genuine human quality became President was 1960, and J.F.K. And he was a white man.

The Evangelical President

On the flip-side of the democratic divide, we have Governor Mike Huckabee. Though I know too little about him as of yet, a feeling I imagine I share with many Americans, watching some of his interviews, this man shares that same key quality of decency and genuine humanity that Obama has.

Mr. Huckabee brings with him some interesting commonalities with, of all people, Bill Clinton. He's from Hope, Arkansas, Mr. Clinton's hometown, first of all. Secondly, they were both two-term governors of the great state of Arkansas. Thirdly, they both play musical instruments (Clinton with his famous sax, Huckabee a bassist). And finally, the two have also shared friendly relations with political strategist Dick Morris, with whom though Mr. Clinton has since severed ties.

His ace in the hole against his opponents though, aside from his astute, "aw-shucks" public persona, is his career as a Southern Baptist pastor. These irrefutable religious credentials are in marked contrast to the pseudo-evangelism of President Bush, as well as the still thorny issue of Mr. Romney's Mormonism. His years as a pastor also hold much water for grassroots Republican voters, as well as the enormous amount of Evangelical Christians who swept Mr. Bush into power in 2004. Their potential power was displayed back then, and now again in Iowa.

The significance of this common denominator is best understood when juxtaposed with the sort of ruthless, win-at-any-cost establishment campaigns run by Mr. Romney and Ms. Clinton. As I see it, Americans are finished with the Rove/Carville politics of the 90s where elections became battles, personal attacks commonly accepted, and any tactic that produced a surge in the polls celebrated. Furthermore, average American voters, especially in the middle-class, feel more disconnected with their government than at any time since the Nixon era thirty-five years ago. They yearn for a leader in whom they can trust. They demand competence, wisdom and righteousness after eight years of their absence.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Romney can certainly provide the competence and the leadership, no doubt about it. But can they provide the vessel in to which American voters can pour their hopes, dreams and faith? That is their biggest weakness, and both Obama and Huckabee are smart enough to exploit that. This answer to this question is sure to be illuminated a little more in a few days time with the New Hampshire primary. Until then, I will try to follow up with some more analysis and speculation in a second part.

=//Turnquest

2008/01/03

Top 5

Forget top 10 lists. These were the only films you needed to see this year:

7. Sicko

6. Ratatouille

5. Superbad / Knocked Up

4. Transformers

3. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

2. Control

1. tie: No Country for Old Men / There Will Be Blood / Zodiac

* Honourable Mention: Grindhouse, Hot Fuzz

=//Turnquest

2007/12/27

When I Return to Pakistan

[excerpt from Washington Post Op-Ed, dated Thursday, September 20, 2007]

* * *

When I Return to Pakistan
By Benazir Bhutto

I am returning to Pakistan on Oct. 18 to bring change to my country. Pakistan's future viability, stability and security lie in empowering its people and building political institutions. My goal is to prove that the fundamental battle for the hearts and minds of a generation can be accomplished only under democracy.

The central issue facing Pakistan is moderation vs. extremism. The resolution of this issue will affect the world, particularly South and Central Asia and all Muslim nations. Extremism can flourish only in an environment where basic governmental social responsibility for the welfare of the people is neglected. Political dictatorship and social hopelessness create the desperation that fuels religious extremism.

Throughout Pakistan's 60-year history, weaving between dictatorship and democracy, from free elections to rigged elections to no elections, religious fundamentalists have never been a significant part of our political consciousness. We are inherently a centrist, moderate nation. Historically, the religious parties have not received more than 11 percent of the vote in national elections. The largest political party is mine, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). Pakistan's political landscape has been molded primarily by the moderate PPP, which has demonstrated strong and continuous support from the rural masses and the urban elite.

Extremism looms as a threat, but it will be contained as it has been in the past if the moderate middle can be mobilized to stand up to fanaticism. I return to lead that battle.

I have led an unusual life. I have buried a father killed at age 50 and two brothers killed in the prime of their lives. I raised my children as a single mother when my husband was arrested and held for eight years without a conviction -- a hostage to my political career. I made my choice when the mantle of political leadership was thrust upon my shoulders after my father's murder. I did not shrink from responsibility then, and I will not shrink from it now.

I am aware that some in Pakistan have questioned the dialogue I have engaged in with Gen. Pervez Musharraf over the past several months. I held those discussions hoping that Musharraf would resign from the army and restore democracy.

My goal in that dialogue has never been personal but was always to ensure that there be fair and free elections in Pakistan, to save democracy. The fight against extremism requires a national effort that can flow only from legitimate elections. Within our intelligence and military are elements who sympathize with religious extremists. If these elements are not answerable to Parliament and the elected government, the battle against religious militancy, a battle for the survival and future of Pakistan, could be lost. The military must be part of the battle against extremism, but as the six years since Sept. 11, 2001, have shown, the military cannot do it on its own.

Many issues remain unresolved in our political structure. Musharraf is precluded from seeking reelection in or out of uniform. Pakistani law requires a two-year wait before a member of the military can run for the presidency. The general can respond to the people's desire for legitimate presidential, parliamentary and ministerial elections, or he can tamper with the constitution. The latter choice would risk a fresh confrontation with the judiciary, the legal community and the political parties. Such a confrontation could lead to another declaration of martial law, civil unrest, or both.

Civil unrest is what the extremists want. Anarchy and chaos suit them.

The political element in Musharraf's party that presided over the rise of extremism has worked with every Pakistani administration since my government was destabilized in 1996. Its members are blocking the democratic change I have tried to achieve with Musharraf. They fear that democracy will be difficult to manipulate to the benefit of extremists and militants.

My dialogue with Musharraf aims to move the country forward from a dictatorship that has failed to stop the tribal areas from becoming havens for terrorists. The extremists are even spreading their tentacles into Pakistan's cities.

Last week brought a fresh challenge. Just days ago, Pakistan's election commission arbitrarily amended the constitutional provision regarding the eligibility of a person competent to contest for the office of president. As the constitution can be amended only through a two-thirds majority in Parliament, a judicial hornet's nest has been stirred.

My party and I seek fair, free and impartial elections to be held by an independent election commission under an interim government of national consensus. We want a level playing field for all candidates and parties.

In words commonly attributed to Joseph Stalin, "Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." That's why we have stressed electoral reforms -- although our efforts have so far been in vain.

President Bush has rightly noted, "The most powerful weapon in the struggle against extremism is not bullets or bombs -- it is the universal appeal of freedom. Freedom is the design of our maker, and the longing of every soul."

When my flight lands in Pakistan next month, I know I will be greeted with joy by the people. I do not know what awaits me, personally or politically, once I leave the airport. I pray for the best and prepare for the worst. But in any case, I am going home to fight for the restoration of Pakistan's place in the community of democratic nations.

The writer is chairwoman of the Pakistan People's Party and served as prime minister of Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and from 1993 to 1996. She lives in exile in Dubai.