Blind man with a pistol: USA in the Middle East:

"Whether four Islamic absolute monarchies and Israel represent the democratic future in the Middle East seems to me doubtful, but never mind." - William Pfaff

David Seaton's News Links
"Blind Man with a Pistol" was the title of a wonderful Chester Himes, Coffin Ed Johnson and Gravedigger Jones detective novel set in Harlem, however it describes perfectly America's present policies in the Middle East.

Here is the skinny from the excerpted article below,

"Rice's comments were an unusually detailed public explanation of the new American effort to create a de facto alliance between Israel and moderate Arab states against Iranian extremism."

This, in my opinion, is perfectly insane. Israel is pure poison in the entire Islamic world. Israel is probably the one single, greatest, cause of Islamic extremism in the world and the one that attracts the most general sympathy in the "Arab street" for extremist positions.

You may remember that one of the principal achievements of Bush/Baker in the first Gulf War was to maintain Israel on the sidelines during that conflict. If Israel had counter-attacked Iraq at that time, the entire complex web alliances that James Baker managed to weave to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait would have fallen apart instantly.

The infinitely corrupt, "moderate rulers" of "moderate" Arab countries are held in enough contempt by their populations: their positions (vital to US interests) are shaky enough as it is; all they need is to be seen collaborating with the "Zionist entity and the Crusaders" against other Muslims to expose them to all the internal forces that eliminated Anwar el Sadat. These are forces that are infinitely more powerful now than they were in Sadat's day.

As non-Muslims, the United States taking part in what is essentially a family quarrel between Sunnis and Shiites is stupid enough, but to bring Israel in to it is simply insane and shows that the United States is no longer in control of its own foreign policy.

Condoleezza Rice would do well to remember an old Afghan proverb that is applicable in any clan and tribal based society. "Me against my brothers. My brothers and me against my cousins. My brothers, my cousins and me, against the world." DS

Rice's Strategic Reset - Washington Post
Abstract: Rice said the new approach reflects growing Arab concern about Iran's attempt to project power through its proxies: "After the war in Lebanon, the Middle East really did begin to clarify into an extremist element allied with Iran, including Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. On the other side were the targets of this extremism -- the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Palestinians -- and those who want to resist, such as the Saudis, Egypt and Jordan." America's recent show of force against Iran -- seizing Iranian operatives in Iraq and sending additional warships to the Persian Gulf -- was part of this broader effort to reassure the Saudis and others that, despite its troubles in Iraq, America remains a reliable ally against a rising Iran. "The U.S. has to demonstrate that it is present in the Gulf, and going to be present in the Gulf," Rice told me.(...) Realignment is linked with a new U.S. effort to forge peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Rice is encouraging both sides to explore "final-status issues" -- such as borders, the status of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to a homeland -- rather than remain deadlocked over the so-called road map.(...) Critics may see Rice's realignment strategy as another high-risk roll of the dice by the Bush administration in a region that is already polarized by the Iraq war and sectarian conflict. These critics may also question the central role of Saudi Arabia, a conservative Islamic monarchy that many Arabs regard as a bastion of the status quo. "The reception will be very skeptical" among some Arabs, cautioned one prominent official who is normally among the most pro-American in the region. "Increasing the fault line between Sunnis and Shiites is a mistake," he argued. State Department officials would counter that it was Iran that moved the fault line by encouraging Hezbollah's provocative behavior in Lebanon. The Bush administration's thinking about realignment helps explain why it has resisted engaging Syria and Iran, as recommended by the Baker-Hamilton report. As Rice put it, "You have a 'pan' movement, across the region. The war in Lebanon crystallized it for everyone. You can't just leave it there. . . . If you concentrate on engaging Syria and Iran, you may lose the chance to do the realignment." READ IT ALL

Billmon is back and kicking serious butt

David Seaton's News Links

In case you missed his long awaited return, Billmon, (guru jai, jai, guru maharaj!) is back on line after a well deserved vacation and is still kicking very serious butt. Check out the number he does on Condoleeza (Secretary of State from Hell) Rice. DS

Tidbits: Maybe the simplest explanation is also the most accurate. Maybe Condi is just a cold, heartless bitch -- as morally numb and sociopathic as her office husband. (...) Does Condi understand how many deaths, mutilations and wrecked lives lie behind her "investments" and "birth pangs"? Undoubtedly. Does she care? I don't know. But, from a public diplomacy point of view, it would behoove her to show some sign that she has an emotional connection to the rest of the human race -- or, if she doesn't, to at least pretend that she does. READ IT ALL

Gallup poll shows: after six years of Bush the American people are finally wising up

David Seaton's News Links

This Gallup poll shows that after six years of George W. Bush, Americans are wising up, they finally realize that the menu of US presidential candidates they are being offered is similar in quality to the McDonald's menu in "Super Size Me". Certainly the "people's choice", that great American, "Don't Know," is good news, a sign that "vox populi, vox dei" may still be in force. DS

Abstract from Editor and Publisher: The frontrunner for winning the White House in 2008 is a true dark horse: Don't Know. A new Gallup survey, which offers a twist on its usual preference poll. includes "Don't Know" as an option. It now wins with 38%, trailed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 15% an Sen. John McCain at 11%. Gallup Poll director Frank Newport sums it up this way today: "Many Americans cannot spontaneously think of the name of a person they would like to see elected president in 2008. While this lack of firm conviction about presidential candidates over a year before the first 2008 primaries is not necessarily unusual, it underscores the certainty of change as various politicians announce their candidacies and jockey for position in the months ahead." Sen. Barack Obama already is in the #3 slot, at 6%. Five other possible candidates are picked by between 2% and 5%: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. John Edwards, Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Vice President Al Gore. This "top-of-mind" survey was taken Nov. 27-29. McCain leads Clinton among Independents by a narrow margin.

Holistic solutions in the Middle East

David Seaton's News Links

If there is one thing that the Israelis really don't want it is a "global solution" to the Middle East. Well, that's not exactly true, the "Global War On Terrorism" (GWOT) and the invasion of Iraq as a prelude to the invasion of Syria and then the invasion of Iran, "real men go to Tehran", was the Israeli right's and their neocon Washington operative's first choice, but that isn't working out is it? If a global conference takes place, the Israelis will have to give up all the land they took in 1967, including Jerusalem. Now, there are many Israelis and even more American Jewish people who would be more than glad to sign that to get some peace, but as Americans have cause to know, right wing crazies often carry the day against all reason. Any "making nice" by the Olmert government at this point has to be taken with total skepticism: they are simply playing for time. This is not dumb: things are deteriorating so fast and Bush is so crazy, that they may finally escape from a peace conference without taking the blame for its failure. DS

Abstract - Middle East hot spots merging - Christian Science Monitor: After sitting down with President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Jordan Thursday to seek solutions to Iraq's agony, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waded into the other conflict spreading bitterness throughout the region. Hoping to keep the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire momentum alive, Ms. Rice went to the West Bank and Jerusalem Thursday to nudge the two sides toward concerted peacemaking. The two events underscore the gradually eroding boundaries between Middle East flash points - from Baghdad to Beirut to Gaza. Indeed, the Bush administration's visits come amid growing discussion about the need to find holistic solutions. A growing number of observers - most notably British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jordan's King Abdullah - have advocated that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would boost stability. But others say the rise of radical Islam, Iran's push to become a nuclear and regional power, and the US initiative to promote democracy have created a complex web of forces that contribute to conflicts around the Middle East. "Progress between Israel and Palestinians is good for efforts to deal with other conflicts in the Middle East. Undoubtedly they're all interlocked," says Yossi Alpher, the coeditor of the online Middle East journal Bitterlemons.org. "But I'm very wary of arguments which we increasingly hear, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are very extensive linkages that you didn't have in the past, but it goes both ways."(...) In September, Philip Zelikow, a senior adviser to Rice, called the Israeli-Palestinian problem "the essential glue that binds a lot of these problems together." Mohammed Dejani, a political science professor at Al Quds University, described the conflict as a "historic issue" in the Arab world. "A lot of the anger and resentment that's taking place regarding the policies of the US has been because of its stand on this issue," he says. "All radical regimes and movements are using this issue because among the masses in the Arab world there is a lot of sympathy regarding the suffering of the Palestinians."(...) The regional linkages are increasingly being recognized in Israel, which in the past has preferred bilateral negotiations as the only means to solving the conflicts with its neighbors. In his speech this week, Olmert said he planned to reach out to moderate Arab states to help advance the peace process and even praised a four-year-old Saudi Arabian peace plan. READ IT ALL

You can't make this stuff up: U.S. Considers Ending Outreach to Insurgents - Washington Post

David Seaton's News Links

"There is a real sense of urgency, but there is not a sense of panic," Hadley told reporters on board Air Force One. "I think probably it's going to be weeks rather than months. It's going to be when the president is comfortable." Now if I understand this marvelous quote correctly, our beloved leader will retire to his ranch in Crawford Texas and cut a little brush and stuff and then when he is comfortable, he will decide if the United States of America, although probably unable at this stage to prevent an ethnic cleansing in Iraq, will finally participate actively in said ethnic cleansing by commission and omission. DS

Abstract from the Washington Post: The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the government, according to U.S. officials. The proposal, put forward by the State Department as part of a crash White House review of Iraq policy, follows an assessment that the ambitious U.S. outreach to Sunni dissidents has failed. U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that their reconciliation efforts may even have backfired, alienating the Shiite majority and leaving the United States vulnerable to having no allies in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the State Department proposal. Some insiders call the proposal the "80 percent" solution, a term that makes other parties to the White House policy review cringe. Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 26 million people.(...) Opponents of the proposal cite three dangers. Without reconciliation, military commanders fear that U.S. troops would be fighting the symptoms of Sunni insurgency without any prospect of getting at the causes behind it -- notably the marginalization of the once-powerful minority. U.S. troops would be left fighting in a political vacuum, not a formula for either long-term stabilization or reducing attacks on American targets. A second danger is that the United States could appear to be taking sides in the escalating sectarian strife. The proposal would encourage Iraqis to continue reconciliation efforts. But without U.S. urging, outreach could easily stall or even atrophy, deepening sectarian tensions, U.S. sources say. A decision to step back from reconciliation efforts would also be highly controversial among America's closest allies in the region, which are all Sunni governments. Sunni leaders in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms have been pressuring the United States to ensure that their brethren are included in Iraq's power structure and economy.(...) The policy review team briefed President Bush on Sunday evening with a 15-page slide presentation of its incomplete findings. Although differences have not yet been sorted out, the presentation coalesced heavily around a tilt to the Shiites, sources said. The White House review was then put on hold for Bush's summit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The administration had initially hoped to pull together its review about the time the Iraq Study Group released its report, but en route home from the Bush-Maliki summit in Jordan, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said changes to U.S. strategy may still be weeks away. "There is a real sense of urgency, but there is not a sense of panic," Hadley told reporters on board Air Force One. "I think probably it's going to be weeks rather than months. It's going to be when the president is comfortable." (emphasis added) READ IT ALL

It's all the Iraqi's fault, really.... yechh!

David Seaton's News Links
All my life I've been hearing about the dangers of "isolationism": how if America minded its own business the world would go to hell in a hand basket. Obviously the complete opposite is true: if America doesn't mind its own business the world will go (is going) to hell in a hand basket. Corrupt institutions, including the press and a gullible people fed on lies and manipulation have visited death and desolation on another people who had done them no harm and then, failing miserably, blame the resultant catastrophe on the victims. Truly such inept and incompetent Americans should retire to what is now known in Newspeak as the "Homeland" and devote themselves to that one activity in which they are universally acknowledged as supreme: shopping. Come to think of it, isn't that what Bush advised the American people to do after 9-11? Didn't Alice in Wonderland, in the Disney version, sing, "I give myself such very good advice"? DS

As Iraq Deteriorates, Iraqis Get More Blame - Washington Post

Abstract: From troops on the ground to members of Congress, Americans increasingly blame the continuing violence and destruction in Iraq on the people most affected by it: the Iraqis.(...) This marks a shift in tone from earlier debate about the responsibility of the United States to restore order after the 2003 invasion, and it seemed to gain currency in October, when sectarian violence surged. Some see the talk of blame as the beginning of the end of U.S. involvement. "It is the first manifestation of a 'Who lost Iraq?' argument that will likely rage for years to come," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University expert on terrorism who has worked as a U.S. government consultant in Iraq. Americans and Iraqis are increasingly seeing the situation in different terms, said retired Army Col. Jeffrey D. McCausland , who recently returned from a visit to Iraq. "We're just talking past each other," he said, adding that Americans are psychologically edging toward the door that leads to disengagement. "We're arguing about 'cut and run' versus 'cut and jog.' "(...) The blame game has also been playing out somewhat divisively within the secretive Iraq Study Group. (...) "I'm tired of nit-picking over how we should bully the Iraqis into becoming better citizens of their own country," former CIA Middle East expert Ray Close wrote in an e-mail to the other advisers to the study group. Several other experts of various political stripes said this tendency to dump on Baghdad feels like a preamble to withdrawal. "It's their fault, and by implication not ours, is clearly a theme that's in the air," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and longtime skeptic of the war in Iraq. (...) "People never understood the culture and the challenges that we faced in trying to build a new Iraq," a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "There's incredible frustration . . . but it also shows a great deal of ignorance." "Definitely," said Paul Rieckhoff, who served in Iraq as an Army officer in 2003-2004 and went on to found a veterans group critical of the conduct of the war. "It is growing into an angry, scolding tone." He said he finds it "sad" -- "especially after all the talk of our mission to 'save the Iraqis.' " The long-term effect of blaming Iraqis also could be poisonous, said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan specialist in Middle Eastern issues. He predicted that it will "infuriate the Iraqis and worsen further the future relationship of the two countries."(...) During a surprise visit to Baghdad on Oct. 5, Rice said with uncharacteristic bluntness that the security situation was not helped by "political inaction."(...) "Our role is not to resolve those issues for them," Rice told reporters last month after pressing Maliki to be bolder about disbanding militias and reconciling sectarian differences. "They are going to have to resolve those issues among themselves." READ IT ALL

Israeli position unraveling: Bush/Baker back

David Seaton's News Links

Yasser Arafat was at first pleased when George W. Bush 'defeated' Al Gore for the presidency. The late Rais thought that the Shrub would follow the pro-Arab James Baker/Brent/Snowcroft policies of his father... After some time that is what looks like finally happening. Arafat must be rolling around in his grave with laughter. It becomes clearer by the day that the only way out of the Middle Eastern quagmire for the USA is to bring in all the Arab countries for a solution. First this means not destabilizing their authoritarian regimes with democratization campaigns and multi-colored "Springs". And then, so that they all have something nice to take home from the conference to show their peoples that helping the USA was really a good idea: a solution to the Palestinian question. The loser in this will be Israel This is the mirror image of the entire neo-con, "A Clean Break" strategy for the Middle East and the end of the Jabotinsky dream of a "Greater Israel" that would dominate the Middle East. In the end this policy change may set off more earthquakes in the USA than in the Middle East. DS
Iraq and Palestine: Twinned in Revised Bush Strategy on Iraq - Debka
Abstract: One of the most pressing pieces of business the US president George W. Bush must tackle in Amman later this week is the demand for an international conference on Iraq which must be dominated by a built-in agenda on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Palestinian leaders, picking up the new tones in Washington, decided to cash in by announcing the cessation of Hamas’ Qassam missile attacks on Israeli civilian locations, starting Sunday, Nov. 26.(...) The ceasefire – like Olmert’s promises - is unlikely to survive long after Bush’s departure from the Middle East. Since Sunday, every Palestinian and Israeli verbal pronouncement has been attuned to the wavelengths of Bush and his secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. She will join him in Amman and lead the effort to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders together. Her mission will be to extract results from these encounters for tempting Arab rulers to lend the United States a helping hand on the Iraq crisis.(...) the brain behind this new strategy belongs to Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to three Republican presidents, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George Bush Sr. He is emerging as the live wire behind the latest US foreign policy departures and the pivotal figure behind the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. This panel - which submits its final report to Congress on Dec. 10 - recommends an international conference on Iraq attended by leaders from Europe, Russia, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and the main Muslim nations.(...) such a conference would spend more time on the Palestinian-Israeli issue than on Iraq. The group’s leaders predict that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other Arab participants will demand “progress on the Israel-Palestinian track” before letting the conference get down to brass tacks on Iraq. To lay the groundwork, therefore, Washington will have to give the international community free rein to squeeze Israel for far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians - and not only the Palestinians, if Syria is to be engaged. This would require a diametric reversal of George Bush’s previous warm attitude towards “our friend and ally” Israel, possibly even a reversion to the iciness directed against the Shamir government in the early 1990s by the elder Bush, whom James Baker served as secretary of state and Scowcroft as national security adviser. Earlier this month, Scowcroft, as chairman of the American-Turkish Friendship League, visited Ankara for an appeal to Turkish leaders to persuade the Syrian ruler Bashar Asad to cooperate on Iraq. His mindset was revealed in an interview he gave the Turkish Daily News of Nov. 9, 2006: “I think we need to embed Iraq in a larger regional solution, and that to me goes back to the Palestinian issue. I think this would put us back on the offensive psychologically and even make Iraq easier to manage.” Scowcroft then linked this viewpoint to the notion of an international conference, saying: “But I don’t think this will start with some kind of a conference because everyone will come with their preset speeches and everything will freeze again. But I think that there will be some quiet consultations in the region. I believe the Arab states in the region are eager for such a conversation. Israel may not be eager, but Israel is in bad shape right now.”(...) The cards in Washington are therefore stacked against Israel these days. An unfortunate combination has emerged of a president who regards the Jewish state as strategically weak and a brace of key US advisers on the administration’s new Iraqi policy who are drawn from the most anti-Israeli US administrations of the past. The Olmert government, however forthcoming, must brace itself for a period of intensive American pressure to cede ever more assets to curry favor with the Arabs. READ IT ALL

Befuddled Superpower

David Seaton's News Links

One of the most surreal, strange and extraordinary side effects of the war in Iraq has been to find myself repeatedly agreeing with Pat Buchanan. This had never happened to me before, that I recall. This article, for example, is bang on. DS

Abstract: "The president," said an anonymous White House official, "has asked the national security agencies to assess the situation in Iraq, review the options and recommend the best way forward. … The president indicated Monday that he is interested in hearing interesting ideas both within the administration and from the Baker-Hamilton commission." So critical is this review that Condi Rice postponed her departure for the Asia-Pacific summit to participate. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told the Post the secretary has been "doing a lot of thinking" about Iraq over the last two months. Thinking about what? Replied McCormack: "The primary focus is on the State Department role in Iraq and are we pursuing the proper policies, are we asking the right questions, are we seeking the right objectives, are we using the right means to achieve these objectives, following the right strategy and tactics?" Excuse me, but this sounds like some lost soul crying in a wilderness. Yet it is the voice of the foreign ministry of the world’s last superpower in the fourth year of a war to decide the fate and future of the entire Middle East. Should not these questions have been asked, and answered with finality, by our war leaders before they marched us up to Baghdad? Are these not the questions a Democratic Senate should have asked Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell before they gave Bush a blank check for war? READ IT ALL