Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Last night’s Newsnight featured a debate between Malcolm Rifkind and a New Labour toady Mike Gapes on the war in Iraq (available online for 24 hours). It was an odd feeling to find myself entirely in agreement with a Conservative MP. It doesn’t happen often (I’m only including the “often” in this sentence because of this one case). Rifkind fairly ripped into Gapes who was left floundering, even resorting to accusing Rifkind of being a Saddam sympathiser. I thought we’d heard the last of that old chestnut but it appears that we have not. It really is a rather stupid “argument” for all sorts of reasons. It’s a classic strawman.
My question for Gapes would be this:

North Korea is currently governed by nasty authoritarian dictator Kim Jong Il. Do you:
a) Support an immediate, poorly planned, and poorly executed military invasion of North Korea.
b) Support the government of Kim Jong Il.

Come on Gapes, which is it? A or B? Supporter or incompetant aggressor? It must be one or the other. Come on, answer…
Or, and this is my advice, you could just grow a brain and stop spouting such nonsense.

Gapes also said something odd. He said that after the December elections, Iraq will have a fully sovereign government with a new constitution. He added no caveats and he did not mention the October referendum on the constitution. “This is what will happen” was basically what he said. It seems a rather strange position given that most independent observers have expressed serious doubts as to whether the constitution will survive the vote. Gapes appears to have no such doubts. Strange.

It’s an unrelated matter (cough), but does anyone know how many independent observers will be monitoring the fairness of the forthcoming referendum?

President Bush made another speech on Iraq and the “war” on terror yesterday. The occassion was the 60th anniversary of VJ day. CBS News summarizes the thrust of the speech with Bush: Terror War Akin to WWII. The full text is available from the Whitehouse website. He said:

As we mark this anniversary, we are again a nation at war. Once again, war came to our shores with a surprise attack that killed thousands in cold blood. Once again, we face determined enemies who follow a ruthless ideology that despises everything America stands for. Once again, America and our allies are waging a global campaign with forces deployed on virtually every continent. And once again, we will not rest until victory is America’s and our freedom is secure.

Godwins Law, I win. OK, Godwins is actually about Hitler but I think the point is still valid. World War Two was a brutal and violent war between two large groups of heavily militarised nations. The UK faced the serious possibiliy of a full scale military invasion. The US faced the possibility that it would become the only large democratic nation left in the world. Million died. The comparison Bush makes insults the memory of every person who fought and died to defend the free world against the mighty military power of the Japanese and the Nazis. It appears from his statement that Bush has little or no understanding of WWII. Except that he does (or at least his speechwriters do). A little further on in the speech he says:

The men and women who served in World War II belonged to a generation that kept its faith even when liberty’s ultimate triumph was far from clear… More than half a dozen nations had large[r] armies than we did. In Asia and Europe, country after country had fallen before the disciplined armies of the militaristic regimes. These events led many to conclude that freedom had seen its day, and that the future belonged to the hard men in Berlin and Tokyo.

So, he does, at least in theory, understand that WWII was nothing like the “war” on terror. How many nations now have armies larger than the US? Answer: none. How many countries have fallen before the disciplined armies of the terrorists? Answer: none.* How many people now conclude that the future belongs to the hard men of Al Qaida? Answer: none.

Actually, that last answer isn’t quite true, some people do seem to think this. I’ve got no idea why** as I’ve still to hear a single convincing argument to support the view that the extremists could “win” in this way. Also, the extremists themselves probably believe it, but that’s neither here nor there really.

Anyway, the point is that Bush makes a claim which is, at best, willfully ignorant of history. At worst, and seemingly supported by his own admission that WWII was far more dangerous than the “war” on terror, it’s deliberately manipulative US government propaganda. Either way, it’s hardly what you’d call decent behaviour.

* OK, at a push you could argue Afghanistan.
** Not quite true either. Government propaganda can be a powerful force.

Three years ago, the US government warned that Iraq was an imminent and serious threat to the security of the Middle East and the wider world. For many people this was not entirely unexpected, the history of US foreign policy is littered with such warnings. In 1961, for example, JFK attempted to construct a “coalition of the willing” to deal with the threat posed by Cuba, prompting the Mexican Ambassador to warn that “if we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing” (cited by Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, Ch 4). To this day, US policy with regard to Cuba is hard for an outsider to understand.

US policy towards Nicaragua during the 1980’s is another example, and this one really has it all.
If there is one situation which perfectly illustrates the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, Reagan’s attitude towards Nicagargua is it. Here’s Noam Chomsky on that subject. I was going to lift a quote from that article but I’d recommend reading it all.

The US government supported the various insurgent groups known as the contras, who were seeking to over throw the leftist regime in the country. It was portrayed as a battle agaist the Soviet menace, part of the Cold War. In reality, the Sandinistas, while certainly no angels, were making a decent job of running the country, and weren’t particulary interested in forming an alliance with the Soviets.

According to the Reagan administration, the Sandinistas posed a serious threat to the US national interest and had to be stopped at all costs. And so, the US govt. supplied weapons and training to the contras. After all, the contras were freedom fighters struggling to free the people from their evil oppressors. That’s not quite the view taken by the State Department in 1982 though:

In 1982, under pressure from Congress, the U.S. State Department declared Contra activities terrorism. The Congressional intelligence committee confirmed reports of Contra atrocities such as rape, torture, summary executions, and indiscriminate killings.

That seems a reasonable assessment. The listed offences would surely qualify under any definition of terrorism which comes close to the mark. But the Reagan administration was unconvinced.

After the U.S. Congress prohibited federal funding of the Contras in 1983, the Reagan administration continued to back the Contras by covertly selling arms to Iran and channelling the proceeds to the Contras (The Iran-Contra affair.)

The Iran-Contra affair: the secret arrangement through which the US government sold weapons to an Islamic fundamentalist government in order to fund the activities of violent terrorists (according to Congress) or courageous freedom fighters (according to the administration). And the administration remained convinced that the contras were freedom fighters even after the elections in 1984 confirmed that the Sandinista government had a mandate from the people.

The result of all this was that the economy of Nicaragua was basically destroyed. It was destroyed by freedom fighters, freedom fighters who raped, tortured, and killed indiscriminately, but, and this is important, who operated with the support of the US government. The contras could not possible be terrorists in the eyes of the Reagan administration, however horrendous their crimes. The contras were on “our side”. By definition, they were not terrorists.

BTW, while I was searching the interwebs I found a CIA Manual written for the contras. Click Permalink if you’d like to see what sort of advice the CIA handed out.

This is on the CNN website so I’m assuming it’s been verified as authentic. I’ll just pick out a few quotations.

CIA Manual: Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare

Honest Recruitment

Established citizens — doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, etc., — will be recruited initially as “Social Crusaders” in typically “innocuous” movements in the area of operations. When their “involvement” with the clandestine organization is revealed to them, this supplies the psychological pressure to use them as “inside cadres” in groups to which they already belong or of which they can be members.

Lie then blackmail, very democratic.

Demonstrating Popular Support

Through a small group of guerrillas infiltrated within the masses this can be carried out; they will have the mission of agitating by giving the impression that there are many of them and that they have a large popular backing. Using the tactics of a force of 200-300 agitators, a demonstration can be created in which 10,000-20,000 persons take part.

“Agitate”, (whatever that means) then lie. Nice.

What to do if you “accidentally” shoot someone

If, for example, it should be necessary for one of the advanced posts to have to fire on a citizen who was trying to leave the town or city in which the guerrillas are carrying out armed propaganda or political proselytism, the following is recommended:
Explain that if that citizen had managed to escape, he would have alerted the enemy that is near the town or city, and they would carry out acts of reprisal such as rapes, pillage, destruction, captures, etc., in this way terrorizing the inhabitants of the place for having given attention and hospitalities to the guerrillas of the town….

Attribute your crimes to your enemy. Clever. The CIA have quite a few more pieces of advise about what the contras should do if they “accidentally” shoot someone. It’s almost as if they expected it to happen often.

Shoot Important People

It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges, mesta judges, police and State Security officials, CDS chiefs, etc.

Shoot non-combatants. Very sporting. To be fair, the CIA does warn that the contras should really only do this if they can be sure of installing a suitable puppet or insurgent sympathiser to replace the “neutralised” official. So that’s alright then.

If you read the linked document, why not replace the word “guerilla” with the word “terrorist” as you read, just as a wee thought experiment. Hands up anyone who’d be surprised if this document isn’t very, very similar to some of those infamous Al-Qaida training manuals we keep hearing about?
[Fade to flashback…]
Here you are Mr Fundamentalist, here’s a handy manual to help you fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Remember, you’ll have to give it back once you’ve finished with it…. OK, thanks, well done, now give us the book back. What? What do you mean, you’re not gonna? That’s not fair…

Jack Straw has responded to the leaked document which appeared in Sunday’s Observer. The leaked document was a letter from a top civil servant in the Foreign Office warning that UK foreign policy, particularly with regard to Iraq, was fuelling Islamic extremism in the UK. Jack’s not having it though.

“We were in any event a target, and so was the rest of the world, from this extremist terrorism before Iraq,” he said.

It’s a curious coincidence that Straw has such an affinity with the strawman. His “defence” of the government position is entirely meaningless.

Here’s a wee example of what I mean.
Once upon a time. there was a man called Jack who lived in the UK. As such, and in common with every other citizen in the country, he had to face the possibilty that he would be run over by a motor vehicle. There was only a small risk that this would happen, but there was a risk.
Jack decided it would be a good idea to persuade people to lie down in the middle of busy roads. When it was pointed out to him that this is a highly dangerous practise, and that more people were likely to be killed beause of his actions, he responded:

They were in any event a target, and so was the rest of the world, from this motor vehicle accident threat before I started persuading people to lie down in the middle of busy roads.

How true.

And here’s me trying to cut down on blog swearing. Do me a favour Jack, go play with the traffic.

Here we are.

“For f***s sake, what the f*****g f**k is f*****g going on here, you f***ers? This f****ng country is going to the f****ng dogs. for f***s sake!” as one one redtop editor was heard to exclaim.*

It’s not nearly as bad as it sounds. It is just an acceptance of something which will continue to happen whether the Daily Mail likes it or not. It’s also a novel and original attempt to actually do something constructive about it. And it’s certainly a far better idea that continually bemoaning the appalling state of the nation as compared to an entirely mythical “good old days” version of the same.

*Allegedly. OK, I made it up.

Pressure had been mounting as European leaders struggle to come to terms with the EU clothes mountain. Experts warn that a severe shortage of clothing in EU countries is threatening to cause widespread unrest across the whole of the EU. I am, therefore, delighted to be able to announce the launch of a bold new strategy.

Wise words there from the pants squirrel messenger, I’m sure you’ll agree. Who will join us? Less guns, more pants! Less guns, more pants…

Right, that should offend just about everyone I agree with. Satire can be a cruel mistress.

There was an extraordinary article in yesterday’s Sunday Times. Given the Murdoch empire’s cosy relationship with Blair, I’m inclined to think that the report is an official unofficially sanctioned leak of an official position, if you see what I mean. I was going to say it was accurate but something stopped me. It begins:

Tony Blair returns from holiday tomorrow in a position he could only have dreamt of in the aftermath of the general election. While Gordon Brown’s position has deteriorated with a series of Treasury U-turns and mistakes since polling day, Blair has rebounded.
After his majority was slashed by 100 seats, few insiders expected anything other than a disappointing start to the third term. Against the odds, however, he has enjoyed the most successful three months of his entire premiership.

Pardon me but WTF? “Against the odds, however, he has enjoyed the most successful three months of his entire premiership.”?
It wasn’t downright lies day yesterday, was it? I didn’t get a memo or anything. No, it must be something else. I know, it’s probaly a mix up over definitions. How do the writers, Anthony Seldon and Robert Winnett, define success exactly? Perhaps like this:

Success! Persuade some famous people to say that you’ve ended world poverty. No-one will notice that sweet F.A. has actually changed.
Success! The first suicide bombers become active in the UK, thus proving that the “war” on terror is necessary. Attempt to persuade people that the invasion of Iraq had no connection with the attacks, even though your advisers have been warning you of the dangers for months.
Success! More attempted terror attacks on your watch. Nothing to do with the unlawful invasion of a sovereign country though, so that’s OK.
Success! Obscure the fact that the Metropolitan Police officers shot an innocent man in the head at point blank range, for as long as possible. When the truth finally leaks out, launch an investigation to determine who had the sheer stupidity to think that the public had a right to know the truth.
Success! Manage to avoid commenting on the final death throes of the coalition’s exit strategy in Iraq. Instead, enjoy a relaxing holiday with the Peter Pan of Pop.

They do say success breeds success. Can you smell it? Can you?

BTW, the rest of the article is worth reading. It looks like the Safety Elephant’s day’s are numbered at the Home Office. Seems Blair needs someone tougher. I know who could do it, and I believe he recently lost his previous job so he’s available. Nah, you’re right, too liberal.

I’m watching the cricket. The edge of my seat is becoming frayed.

For those not interested in cricket, there’s another traditional Sunday activity to enjoy. It’s
the Britblog roundup. I’ll be checking it out after the cricket.

Update
Another unbelievable game. You couldn’t write the scripts, and other such cliches. Congratulations to England, on a job well done. Yopu’ve got to credit the Australians as well, they really don’t want to lose this series. The last Test should be another belter of a game.

Also, having now checked, I can confirm that there’s lots of good stuff in this week’s roundup. No surprise there really. Make with the clickey.

I’ve been blogging a fair bit about the Iraqi constitution and the difficulties of finding a satisfactory agreement. The situation as it currently stands is an object lesson in all that is wrong with US and UK policy. The current policy of “staying the course” is only a useful if there is a clearly defined and achievable destination, and practical directions as to how to reach it. It gives me no satisfaction to say that US/UK policy has neither, as I’ve been predicting for three years or more. The constitution fiasco brings this into stark relief.

Here’s another reminder of what President Bush said on Monday, August 11th.

As to the constitution, one of the meetings we had this morning was with Zal, our ambassador in Baghdad. And he gave us a briefing as to the progress on the constitution. We have made it clear that we believe that constitution can be and should be agreed upon by August 15th. And so I’m operating on the assumption that it will be agreed upon by August the 15th.

This assumption was wrong. It has taken 13 extra days to reach any sort of agreement and many Sunni’s still do not support the constitution as presented to parliament. To be honest, the 13 extra days probably don’t matter that much. What does matter is that the statement demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the Bush administration. Bush might well believe, and he’ll almost certainly argue, that an agreement has now been reached, but that’s a huge simplification of the situation.

Here’s what I said on Sunday, August 14th (for pedants, it was actually early Monday morning).

I’m not sure that an agreement will be reached before the deadline, or rather, I’m not sure a useful agreement can be reached by then. It won’t surprise me if we are presented with a successful conclusion to the negotiations on Monday. On closer examination this is likely to be an agreement stating that “we agree to continue to negotiate” or something similar.

OK, I wasn’t entirely on the money, but the thrust was basically aimed in the right direction. In fact, it has been, if anything, even more difficult than I expected. It has taken two extra weeks to get round to presenting the fudge as a success.

So, who has a better understanding of the situation in Iraq? Is it:
A) The President of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth. A man who has access to all sorts of detailed and exclusive information, including the ability to hold meetings with the US ambassador to Iraq, and also has access to any number of highly paid advisers?
B) Just another blogger who gets his information from the media, and who takes an interest in such things in his spare time?

The point of this is not to hightlight how clever I am (I’d really rather have been wrong) but to show how Bush and his advisers continue to misunderstand the situation, even when the facts are there for all to see.

The current situation clearly demonstrates the fundamental flaw in the thinking behind the invasion of Iraq. The thing is that these problems were just as easily predicted before the invasion began. The Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds have a long and difficult history in the country they share. After the removal of Saddam, it was always going to be enormously difficult to find a consensus on how Iraq would be governed. The current difficulties, including the role of Islam, the degree of federalisation, access to oil revenues, and possible Kurdish autonomy, were entirely expected by those who understood the country.

The “coalition of the willing”, on the other had, believed that they could make Iraq a bastion of democracy and tolerance in the Middle east. It was to be an example to the region, the teacher’s pet of US policy. This was, at best, hopelessly optimistic. To my mind, it was grossly negligent.

And now, we’ve arrived at a point where it’s difficult to see how the situation can be made better. The US policy is in tatters. Having spent a great deal of time encouraging the Shias and Kurds to include the Sunnis in the process, another u-turn will now urge them to ignore those who oppose the constitution. As I said in a previous post, the US will undoubtedly argue that to vote no to the constitution is to support terrorism. This is, again, an appalling simplification, but, as we’ve already seen time and again, that’s not likely to unduly concern this Whitehouse.
They won’t, for example, point out that voting against Article 2 is an entirely understandable position.

Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

In fact, those tinfoil hatters who fear the return of the caliphate should really be asking a few questions of the Bush administration. They are, after all, supporting the introduction of Islamic law in a country with a tradition of secularism. That won’t happen though, the TFH’s will be silent. Laura Bush won’t be a vocal advocate for equal rights for women in Iraq (not anymore anyway). US troops will continue to die defending this Islamic constitution, a sad irony which should be understood by those who support the war.

It is, sadly, a mess. And the UK? Well, it seems that the UK government has been rewarded for it’s loyalty to Bush by being ignored. Blair is quite happy with this state of affairs though, he prefers to talk about Iraq as little as possible. The fact remains that Blair supported a deeply flawed plan, and he has not had to take responsibility for that error.

Here’s a final thought. If our government had opposed the invasion, it would almost certainly have happened anyway. About now, we’d have been in a position to offer to lead a multi-national force to replace the US occupation forces. The political difficulties would remain but the aggressors would be gone. This would probably have eased some of the tensions in Iraq. We could have been part of the solution. Instead, Blair’s leadership has made us part of the problem.

The world’s leading banana constitutional monarchy

Here are just some of the delights of our wonderful country.

Our Home Office is leading the way in the campaign to help foreign citizens return to their homelands. For some inexplicable reason, some of them seem rather reluctant (a member of the judiciary seems to understand, but they’re all out of touch old duffers, aren’t they?) . It’s just as well then, that the Home Office is going to press ahead anyway and forcibly remove them. I’m sure they’ll enjoy it when they get there.

Our Home Secretary has also taken a firm stance in the “war” on terror. New proposals have given the government the ability to deport anyone they think looks a bit funny. Due to the lack of sensitivity of evidence in such cases, it’s just as well that the government is unwilling to produce such evidence in a court of law.

Our police forces are the envy of the world, having extensive powers of judicial execution. In order to fully investigate events surrounding this case, an independent inquiry has been announced. This inquiry will seek determine who was to blame for the leaking of documents which brought the truth to the attention of the public. This is a serious matter as such actions are in clear breach of government policy.

And everyone’s favourite philanderer, Pensions Minister David Blunkett, has been busy ensuring the right to free speach is upheld. Remember him? He had previously resigned in disgrace. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“There was an intervention, it was fast-tracked and he resigned. He has been found guilty of the offence, it has been found that he had intervened.”

Fortunately for David, the government seems completely unconcerned by issues such as integrity, honesty, or innocence, and he was back in government in two shakes of a lambs tail.

The United Kingdom: the country where all your tinpot authoritarian dreams really can come true.