That Was Predictable

Way back in 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq (long before the Afghanistan mess had been anything close to resolved), I remember having a conversation in which I said that within 5 years of the US withdrawal from Iraq, that the country would founder in civil war.  (I believe much the same thing will inevitably happen in Afghanistan as well)

This week, we have seen the "insurgency" in Iraq transform from a few disorganized groups into a coherent military force not to be trifled with.

Anybody who is surprised by this hasn't been paying close attention since 2001.  The US military may have overthrown the local governments, but groups like al Qaeda, the Taliban and others still exist.  They may have "gone to ground", but make no mistake, they continue to operate and organize. These groups don't disappear magically because of a 5 year long military occupation.  (or even a decade)

If there is a single lesson to be taken from the last decade's worth of interventions in the Middle East it is this:  There are no short term interventions which will create a stable, long lasting democracy in that region.

There are thousands of reasons for this.  The Roman Empire is filled with examples of how even relatively long term direct interventions can fail to instil the sense of cultural trust required for a foreign culture to be willing to adopt the occupiers' desired form of government.  It takes decades, if not longer to build that kind of trust - especially when you arrived with hell at your back to begin with.

Second, where a western styled democracy is concerned, there is an enormous amount of cultural structures that must be in place before it has any chance of long term success.  The people must trust the idea of law as a just and reasonable thing, that justice is somehow apart from the notion of revenge, that the government will respect the rights of individuals and so on.  (I will, for the sake of this essay ignore the egregious violations of this trust in the last decade by governments in the western world ... that is another discussion for another day)

A people that has been subjugated by iron-fisted dictators like Saddam Hussein, or religious fanatics like the Taliban, will not have this trust.  The idea of walking down the street and being safe from the intrusion of government authority cannot exist under these circumstances.  Military occupation is similarly troublesome for similar reasons.  The authority is held not at the will of the people but by the force of arms and the threat of violence to the person.

For those of us who live in Canada, we can trace the evolution of our understanding of law as apart from politics, government as an agent good overall back through the history of England, from the retreat of the Roman Empire from the region, through the Dark Ages and the signing of the Magna Carta to the modern era in which the Monarchy exists more as a figurehead than anything else.

There is a long, gradual process of change that took place, during which the powers of the monarchy grew at first, and gradually ebbed away over time.  The Magna Carta represents the beginning of the real limits on the Monarchy, taking away the ability of England's Monarchs to act as capriciously as they had previously.  It created the idea of the Monarchy as limited in its powers and authority, and the idea of parliament as a guide to the Monarch.

Over the next several hundred years, the powers held by the Monarchy gradually devolved to the parliament, and in particular to the House of Commons.

If it took western societies the better part of a full millennia to evolve into the stable democracies we have today, we must recognize that the process did not take place in a vacuum of changing government, but rather the entire fabric of society changed along with it, enabling the government to become what was needed.  It would be foolish indeed to believe that a similar government can be created and imposed at gunpoint over the course of a little more than a decade.

A Case Against Invading Syria

With the UK and the United States arguing that it's time to take action against Syria, it seems a good time to consider the consequences of such involvement from the NATO powers.

On general principles, I do not believe that there is a particularly strong case for any of the NATO countries to inject themselves into the situation in Syria.

At the core of the argument for American involvement is the moral claim that Syria's government is attacking its citizens.  This is not particularly surprising as a claim, and superficially seems like a fair argument for some kind of direct response.

However, we need to think carefully before responding directly to the situation in Syria.  The fact is that western powers have a terrible record in the region.  The American stance towards Israel (and unfortunately, Canada's stance as well) calls into question the motivations of any intervention.

Frankly, even if the UN were to pass a resolution to intervene in Syria, I would still be cautious about a direct intervention dominated by American or British forces.  It would be

The issue is that the situation in Syria itself is not necessarily as black-and-white as it is being portrayed.  Seldom are civil wars as simple as the masses rising up against a corrupt government.  After a year, we know precious little about who the factions are in Syria.

The apparent lack of interest on the part of the Arab League is troubling.  Frankly, without some "skin in the game" from the Arab League, I don't believe that any action on the part of the United States is going to be seen as having any legitimacy by Syrians or others who live in the region.

Further, I do think that the portrayal of what is going on in Syria in the western media needs to be seen somewhat skeptically.  There are too few aspects of the story being reported, and all of them seem to be presented from the perspective of painting the Assad government as a bunch of evil sods, and the rebels as some kind of heroic freedom fighters.  While there was little doubt in the Libya situation that Gaddafi was no longer capable of holding power and acting rationally, things seem quite different where Assad is concerned.

Where western powers being involved is concerned, it is my opinion that unless the members of the Arab League are willing to lead an intervention in Syria directly, that the western powers should stay out.  Not only do the western powers lack credibility in the region, but after the disaster of Iraq, I think the public has good reason to be skeptical of not just the claims being made to justify attacking Syria, but I suspect that there are enough things that we are not being told to call into question the validity of involvement based on the facts thus far presented.

I am not arguing that Assad, or any of the other belligerents in the Syrian civil war, is any kind of angel.  I'm sure that they all have blood on their hands.  Rather, unless there is a desire on the part of Assad's peers in the region to intervene, that powers from outside the region have no moral authority on which an intervention could be justified.

[Update]
It appears that the British Parliament has voted against attacking Syria.  Good start.  I'm glad to see that the UK's Parliament is still functioning.
[/Update]

About that secure transmissions thing...

Insurgents tapping Predator Drone video

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Frankly, it's quite hilarious to realize that the insurgents know precisely what kind of surveillance the Americans are using - and the fact it can be done with a $26 piece of software is just added irony.

H/T: Canadian Cynic

Hmmm...So It's A Good Thing To Lie?

Apparently, Tony Blair thinks so. After all a pack of lies is what he used to justify participating in Bush II's invasion of Iraq.

In light of recent revelations of our own government's handling of the situation in Afghanistan, I'm beginning to think that there's a sense of entitlement among the neoCons in general - one that justifies lying to the public as long as it fills their needs.

Signs Of Collapse

Those familiar with the history of Rome and her Legions should be finding the emerging stories about US military recruiting quite familiar. In a manner not unlike Rome's legions, the US finds itself obliged to recruit its soldiers from populations that previously would have been excluded from military service for a variety of reasons.

The US is now recruiting from the most dangerous of possibilities - those whose criminal past shows them to be dangerous at the best of times, and hardly among those that one would willingly arm.

Along with the huge armies of mercenaries that are fighting in Iraq for pay, the "professional army" of the United States is now recruiting criminals - people who often would have no right to even vote in an election, and handing them weapons.

This comes as no surprise. Just as Rome ultimately had to recruit from her conquered peoples to feed the ever expanding needs of her armies in order to secure Rome's conquests, the US finds itself pushed to turn to those whom it would have chosen to exclude from all other aspects of public life.

I can only imagine that the US is in grave danger of finding itself in the situation of having the proverbial tiger by the tail, and not having much choice but to let it go.

The Terrible Human Price of Conflict

Go, read

I cannot add anything to this except my utter dismay at the cavalier way in which our politicians in both Canada and the US shrug these kinds of events and stories off.

Basra: Case Study In Failed Gunpoint Diplomacy

With the UK military officially handing control of Basra back to the Iraqis, now is a good time to consider just what the occupation has wrought.

While the official line from the British military is that violence in Basra is down, and this is all about a "success for Iraq", there's some pretty ugly stories that should not be ignored.

al Qaeda is claiming that the UK is "fleeing".

Fair enough, one doesn't have to dig too far to guess what al Qaeda's motives might be, but I also think there's a certain truth value to the notion that as the occupying forces pull back, the power vacuum will be filled not by Iraqi forces per se, but by "shadow forces" that see an opportunity to step forward. (and I'd put money that by this time next year, much of the equipment the Iraqi forces in Basra have today will be in the hands of militants of one sort or another.

The Guardian points out a few rather bleak facts of the reality in Basra:

What have they achieved? When they entered Basra in 2003, they handed out sweets and water and helped to clean the streets. Now they can't safely enter the town even in armoured vehicles. Iraqi security chiefs and politicians say the British should go and that when they do security will improve significantly. Yet police chief Khalaf told the Guardian yesterday that Britain had left him to cope with militia, gangsters, and beheadings of women considered insufficiently Islamic.

It is this second point that scares me. Essentially, radical nutcases are clearly operative in Basra, and trying to impose their peculiar brand of "Islam" on everybody they can. From a human rights perspective, these acts are horrifying - beheading someone because they are a woman, and they aren't "dressed modestly enough" is vile in the extreme.

However, this is ultimately a reflection of precisely the kind of outcome that any military occupation of Iraq would be likely to have.

My prediction is that short of a multi-generation occupation and rebuilding process, the short to medium term outlook for Iraq is bleak and violent. I do not know what forces would come to the forefront if Iraq were allowed to descend into the civil war that is clearly brewing just beneath the surface veneer of "peace".

Iraq to Blackwater: LEAVE NOW!

It seems that there is a pattern here. In its latter years, Rome began creating legions out of non-Romans - often by extending the "honor" of Roman citizenship to people who had served in the legions. The Romans needed these "new Romans" just to be able to do the bare minimum of defending Rome's borders - and these legions collapsed pretty quickly under the pressure of Germanic invaders.

The United States couldn't "justify" the spending needed for the forces it needed in Iraq, so it pulled in a mercenary army called "Blackwater" to supplement the regular military forces.

Today, the Iraqi puppet government told Blackwater to get lost - immediately. This comes as little surprise - sooner or later, someone in the mercenary army was going to do something that was unacceptable to the locals - and would no doubt have merited a court-martial in the regular army.

Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said eight civilians were killed and 13 were wounded when contractors believed to be working for Blackwater USA opened fire on civilians Sunday in the predominantly Sunni neighbourhood of Mansour in western Baghdad.

“We have cancelled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities,” Mr. Khalaf said.

When the local government, which right now is essentially a puppet of the BushCo administration tells you to get lost, you've really overstepped your bounds. In my limited little mind, this is a significant clue to just how badly BushCo thought things through. Not only did they hire what amounts to a mercenary army to provide security for government personnel, but they failed to bind those people to US military discipline - even though there is a military occupation in place.

But then again, we all know how well US Army discipline dealt with Abu Ghraib, don't we?

Bush Fails To Learn The Lessons Of History

In a speech today, President Bush demonstrated his utter lack of comprehension of the past.

According to Bush:

President George W. Bush argued Wednesday that leaving Iraq now would provoke the kind of horrendous bloodbath that followed U.S. withdrawals from Vietnam and Cambodia.

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like boat people, re-education camps and killing fields," Mr. Bush said.

Bush must have failed History 101 somewhere along the way. The lesson of Vietnam is not in what happened when the United States withdrew. The lesson of the Vietnamese conflict has more to do with the ability of determined shadow organizations to make it near impossible for foreign occupiers to control a country - even when overwhelming military force is brought to bear.

"We are still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we know how the others ended, and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today," the president said.

Again, the president is badly misconstruing history quite badly. He's referring to the "victories" in the 20th century that America takes credit for in its efforts to squash the "communist threat". Unfortunately, Bush isn't taking on an ideology - he's taking on a combination of a culture and a religion. A far more relevant example historically are the Crusades. (Which were far from a swimming success)

Perhaps one day, when he's older, Bush Jr. just might realize that the world is better off if you let people live in peace, rather than ramming your agenda down their throats.

Iran's a "Destabilizing Influence"?

Geez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

President Bush says the following about Iran:

The US president said Tehran was "not a force for good" and vowed that the US would continue efforts to isolate it.

"I believe it is in the interests of all of us that we have an Iran that tries to stabilise not destabilise, an Iran that gives up its weapons ambitions and therefore we are working to that end," he said.

So, Iran is a "destabilizing influence"?? What the hell does that make George Bush's America? It's not like you can say that either Afghanistan or Iraq is exactly "stable" yet. And one can hardly say that the United States has been diligent in their efforts to capture Bin Laden:

Mr. Bush has said before that he would order the U.S. to act inside the Muslim-majority country if there were firm intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden or other terrorist leaders.

Mr. bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, is believed to be living in the tribal border region of Pakistan. His ability to avoid capture remains a political sore spot for Mr. Bush.

It is truly disappointing to see Bush continuing to set the stage to "justify" invading Iran, when he hasn't cleaned up the mess he made in two other nations.

Arming Your Own Enemy

One of the biggest problems that the US foreign policy has suffered from (for decades) is the fact that one way or another, they become the suppliers of arms to their own enemies.

The pattern is repeating itself in Iraq - how surprising. It seems that sloppy procedures in distributing arms and armor to the "New Iraqi Military" means that an amazing amount of weaponry has likely landed in the hands of the insurgency.

It's hard to say how much of that is deliberate on the part of the US government - nothing about the war in Iraq has been "up front" from day one, why should this be any different?

While the amount of money involved here is quite small - relative to the overall costs of the US occupation in Iraq - it's still quite a lot of money overall, especially when you realize that most of us could retire quite handsomely on the interest income from an investment 1% of $1 billion.

One has to imagine that the Bush administration has spent its time carefully arranging things so that the mess in Iraq remains volatile for years to come - specifically to hamstring the next president of the US. (Especially desirable for the Rethuglicans if the next president is a Democrat - which seems to be a high probability at this time)