Category Archives: Middle East

Refugees In The Failed State of Iraq

Barack Obama, Bush, Democracy, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Multiculturalism, Neoconservatism, Religion, War

Saddam Hussein ruled over what the state department considered a rogue state, Iraq. The US eliminated Hussein and invaded his country (not in that order). Thanks to the American invasion, Iraq is now a failed state, where the politically weak are forsaken, and a muscular majority exercises its authority (a dispensation also known as democracy). The deposed dictator had kept a lid on the cauldron of sectarian strife, now boiling over in Iraq.

I’ve covered the plight of the millions of Iraqi refugees we helped uproot.

Against the backdrop of “Obama basking in the Iraq withdrawal” comes a reality check: a report, via CNN, on those Iraqis who have been internally displaced.

While war supporters may console themselves with the fact that “displacement is not new in Iraq,” as this Brookings-Institute observes, Iraq since the blessings of Bush is suffering a displacement crisis.

UPDATED: Oy Vey Egypt (Evolution?)

America, Democracy, Elections, Gender, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Media, Middle East

9 Replies

With few exceptions, the American media slobbered mightily over the revolution in Egypt. As a European relative put it: Americans from all political persuasions lack the smarts, the sophistication, and the familiarity with history to be … skeptical.

So, you had the Beltway libertarians joining Anderson Cooper (CNN), Neil Cavuto (Fox News), and Christiane Amanpour (ABC) in spirit at Cairo’s Tahrir Square to celebrate Egypt’s democratic spring; you had America’s female journos rushing to the mainly macho scene to show solidarity with the generic freedom fighters, who, it turned out, doubled up as common-or-garden gropers and rapists.

At the time, this writer wrote about the impossibility of a happy ending “in a country that has become progressively more Islamic since the 1950s.” I added that, “Mubarak’s dictatorial powers were directed, unjustly indubitably, against the Islamic fundamentalists of the Muslim brotherhood.” Unjustly, but probably quite usefully—for now, much to the surprise of the American Idiocracy, Islamic fundamentalists have won 61% of the vote in Egypt’s first democratic election.

“The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party won 36.6% of the 9.7m ballots cast last week, followed by the Salafist al-Nour Party with 24.4%.” [BBC]

The secular Egyptian Bloc came third in the first round with 13.4% of the vote, followed by the liberal Wafd Party with 7.1% and the moderate Islamist Wasat Party with 4.3%. The Revolution Continues, a group formed by youth activists behind the uprising that ousted Mr Mubarak in February, won 3.5%

“This is about freedom,” said the immensely silly Lara Logan before the freedom fighters piled up on top of her.

Indeed.

UPDATE (Dec. 6): I was waiting for a wise man to point out that the historical parallels between the Muslim world and the West are few. Islam and its people aren’t stuck in the 1950s; they’re stuck in the 7th century. Thanks to Huggs for stating the obvious. In touting the sea-change underway in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world, our moron media interviewed 0.1% of the country’s population, the intelligentsia, to extrapolate to the majority. But there is also the deep stupidity so prevalent in the US whereby under the skin, all human beings are said to be the same.

War-Party Prattle

Elections, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Republicans, War

Other highlights (or lowlights, rather) from the CBS/National Journal GOP Debate, which may elicit rhetorical reprisals from my readers:

IRAN: Newt Gingrich exercised his wit in suggesting that Obama had exhausted all the ways to be dumb about Iran. I disagree, but then I am not a neoconservative, and I do not experience a vicarious delight when my country’s military and government bombs, boycotts, and generally bullies barely developed countries. As a prelude to war, Newt was willing to entertain covert operations, co-operation with Israel, but war to break the Iranian regime would be best.

Ron Paul reminded all that war powers were vested in the congressional cockroaches, and warned against Iraq-like war propaganda against mad A-Jad. Still a peculiar idea, if to judge by the facilitator’s facial expression.

Rick Perry, who had taken his meds for the occasion, wanted to shut down the Iranian economy (all the better to starve its people). Good going for a goon.

The Other Rick advocated funding the pro-democracy movement. (With what? Monopoly money?) Santorum also believes that foreign aid creates jobs (although not in Iran). (By logical extension, RS, can you perhaps explain why Republicans assert that the assorted stimulus initiatives have failed to create jobs? How does their source of funding differ from that of foreign aid? Oops; you’re talking to the hand, Ilana Mercer. Not that his inquisitors would ever ask, but RS is incapable of explaining away that “minor” lapse in logic.) RS liked the idea of covert activity targeting Iranian scientists, and advocated the only thing with which I agree: the unleashing of computer viruses on nuclear programming. (See “Cyber-Warfare: Is It Libertarian?”)

Water-boarding babe Michele Bachmann warned of a nuclear conflagration involving Israel. As much as libertarians prefer to pretend otherwise, this is a reality the tiny country should entertain, as no one else is willing to face it, and many even delight in it.

MORE to come.

UPDATED: And the Anti-War Winner Is …

China, Elections, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Republicans, War

Jon Huntsman. In the CBS/National Journal GOP Debate, the former Utah governor articulated the best foreign-policy vision. “I say this nation’s future is not Afghanistan. This nation’s future is not Iraq. This nation’s future is how prepared we are to meet the 21st century competitive challenges, that’s economic and that’s education and that’s going to play out over the Asia Pacific region, and we’re either prepared for that reality or we’re not. I don’t want to be nation building in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built,” Huntsman added.

Huntsman is nothing if not consistent on the foreign-policy front. As I pointed out following the FoxNews/Google debate, Huntsman has “managed to distill a foreign-policy vision better than the rest.” Earlier in September, commenting on the foreign-policy pose Huntsman struck in Florida, I gave the governor points for the libertarian momentum he was gathering by “brilliantly commandeer Ron Paul’s argument for divesting from Afghanistan.”

Huntsman stood out from the crowd in his stark common sense on China too, both because Ron Paul’s positions were not solicited, and because, had they been solicited, Paul would have rambled. Naturally, Huntsman, a former ambassador to China, is not Sinophobic, as all the other candidates are, and grasps that a trade war with China will hurt consumers in the US. No one mentioned the delicate issue of continuously dissing our largest creditor.

National Journal’s correspondents—they provided coverage like the real pros they are—write: Huntsman’s foreign policy experience has largely been overshadowed during the campaign, but he has made his mark for urging the country’s complete withdrawal from the Middle East. It’s a position that’s to the left even of President Obama.

More to follow.

UPDATE: Regarding the Facebook thread. Spare me. Did I say JH was the answer? Ridiculous. I said he articulates very well the American exhaustion with war and intervention abroad. You can’t just expect that, b/c you and I know Paul is better on the issues, everyone else knows the same. Ron Paul has to be able to explain why he is better. Has he done so?

I am not sure why individuals take commentary on a political performance as undying support for a candidate. Sigh. It isn’t; it’s a commentary about a performance.