One of Ours

...I decided what I really wanted to say was this: I'm fed up with the Middle East, or more accurately, I'm fed up with the stalemate in the Middle East. All it has produced is death, destruction and endless "he hit me first" debates on cable television. Arabs, Israelis, Americans — everyone is sick of it.

So now President Bush has stepped in and thrown the whole frozen Middle East chessboard up in the air. I don't like his style, but it's done. The status quo was no better...

...The Bush folks are experts at throwing up chessboards and then leaving the room, with the pieces bouncing all over the floor, and not doing the follow-up (see Iraq) because it interferes with their domestic political agenda. Having given up real U.S. negotiating assets to get Mr. Sharon to move, if Mr. Bush turns a blind eye to any Sharon stalling, U.S. interests will be badly damaged...

...Palestinians will have a chance to reposition themselves in the eyes of Israelis. They will have a chance to build a decent ministate of their own in Gaza that will prove to Israelis they can live in peace next to Israel. It will be hard and they will need help. Gaza is dirt poor. But if the Palestinians show they can build a decent state, it will do more to persuade Israelis to give up more of the West Bank, or swap land there for parts of Israel, than any Bush statements or Hamas terror. This is the best chance Palestinians have ever had to run their own house without the Israelis around. I wish them well, because if they do well, everything will be on the table...

HERE'S A LETTER TO THE EDITOR from a recently returned Iraq vet. Like many other such letters, it says that thngs are much better there than media reports suggest.

I tend to believe that -- things are better almost everywhere (except Cuba) than media reports suggest., But as I've said before, the biggest problem with the Iraq reporting isn't that it's too negative, though it is, it's that it doesn't tell us what we need to know. The CERP issue, for example, was probably the most important single thing going on last summer/fall but it got very little attention from the media. Likewise, the big media were slow to follow up on Zeyad's war-crime scoop. And I ran an email regarding problems at the CPA that haven't been addressed by big media much, but that are quite important if they're as bad as my reader suggests.

Despite last week's hysteria, which made factional fighting -- ugly but limited -- out to be a massive popular uprising, it's clear that the real issues in Iraq are political, not military. Is our government doing a good job? It's hard to tell. And the tendency, knowing that the media are overplaying some negatives, is to apply Kentucky windage and assume that things in general are better than they say. This may be true, but it may also be true (as the above examples suggest, and as I've noted before on multiple occasions) that there's not just good news, but bad news, going unreported.

That's especially unfortunate, because good reporting doesn't just inform ordinary folks like us. It's also a check on reports that flow up within the chain of command, making sure that real problems get noticed and not papered over. I'm afraid that the White House, understandably tired of the unrelenting negativity that has given us the Brutal Afghan Winter of 2002, the Invasion-Killing Sandstorm of 2003, and the Mass Popular Uprising of 2004, may have started tuning out negative reports.

That would be a mistake, and here's one that shouldn't be tuned out: Jordan's King Abdullah is worried about increasing chances for civil war in Iraq: "Six months ago, I didn't think it was a possibility. I still don't think it is, but for the first time we're nervous."

He's unimpressed with the de-Baathification program, which he says has turned many people in to malcontents unnecessarily. Is he right? I don't know (though this echoes, in some ways, concerns raised by Chief Wiggles many months ago). But it's the kind of thing people ought to be thinking about, and the kind of thing I'd like to see reporting on.

...Here's how the scam allegedly worked: Saddam sold oil to his friends and allies around the world at deep discounts. The buyers resold the oil at huge profits. Saddam then got kickbacks of 10 percent from both the oil traders and the suppliers of humanitarian goods. Iraqi bean counters, fortunately, kept meticulous records.

Coincidence. If you wondered why the French were so hostile to America's approach to Iraq and even opposed to ending the sanctions after the 1991 Gulf War, here's one possible explanation: French oil traders got 165 million barrels of Iraqi crude at cut-rate prices. The CEO of one French company, SOCO International, got vouchers for 36 million barrels of Iraqi oil. Was it just a coincidence that the man is a close political and financial supporter of President Jacques Chirac? Or that a former minister of the interior, Charles Pasqua, allegedly received 12 million barrels from Baghdad? Or that a former French ambassador to the U.N., Jean-Bernard Merimee, received an allocation of 11 million barrels? Perhaps it was just happenstance, too, that a French bank with close ties to then French President François Mitterrand and one of the bank's big shareholders who is close to Saddam became the main conduit for the bulk of the $67 billion in proceeds from the oil-for-food program. All told, 42 French companies and individuals got a piece of this lucrative trade. No matter how cynical you may be, it's sometimes just plain hard to keep up with the French.

But they're not alone. Russians received more than 2.5 billion barrels of the cut-rate crude. Some 1.4 billion barrels went to the Russian state. Not to be left out of the feeding frenzy, even the U.N. got in on the action. It received administrative fees of about $2 billion for the program, which may be fair, but the senior U.N. official in charge of the program, Benon Sevan, is reported to have received 11.5 million barrels himself. Cotecna, a Swiss-based firm hired by the U.N. to monitor the import of the food and medicine to Iraq, hired Kojo Annan, the son of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, as a consultant during the period when the company was assembling and submitting bids for the oil-for-food program...

..The imposition of so-called smart sanctions on Iraq, several years after the end of the 1991 Gulf War, allowed Saddam to purchase items besides food and medicine. But some of the things approved by Kofi Annan seem pretty far afield. There was the $20 million he authorized for an Olympic sports city for Uday Hussein, Saddam's reprehensible (and now deceased) oldest son. And then there was the $50 million for TV and radio equipment for Saddam's ham-handed propaganda machine. This is food? Gives new meaning to Kofi Annan's statement, in 1998, that Saddam was a man "I can do business with." And how...

...Kofi Annan is now supporting such an investigation, but the Security Council has not approved it, and France and Russia--surprise!--are actively blocking it...

...Congress is going to conduct its own hearings on the largest public financial scandal in history--and the disgraceful insiders' game played at the U.N.

GLOBALIZATION impoverishes developing countries while undercutting middle-class living standards in the United States. The reduction of trade barriers encourages the exploitation of child labor, fosters a race to the bottom in environmental standards, tears women in third-world nations away from their families, homogenizes disparate indigenous cultures and strips the gears of democracy in favor of rapacious multinational corporations. It also causes cancer in puppies....

...Economics professors disagree with almost all this, but the savvy ones recognize that they've been losing the rhetorical battle. Public opinion polls repeatedly show Americans to be wary about globalization. The problem is not that economists are starting to doubt their own arguments -- the problem is that the rest of society neither understands nor believes them. Between statistical evidence showing that trade is good for the economy and tangible anecdotes of sweatshops and job losses, most citizens trust the anecdotes...

...Critics of globalization will find a few things to admire in Bhagwati's outlook. He limits his defense of globalization to trade, direct investment and migration. The book's short chapter on capital markets echoes many of the concerns of globalization's critics. Bhagwati forcefully denounces ''the Wall Street-Treasury Complex'' that cajoled developing countries into eliminating capital controls...

...Bhagwati says at the outset that he wants to engage the ''mainstream'' elements of the anti-globalization movement. However, he never really grapples with mainstream critics like Dani Rodrik, who argues that economic growth leads to economic openness and not vice versa. There are also missteps in tone that will alienate some. At one point, Bhagwati dismisses a section of the environmental movement as a bunch of ''old folks turning to protect turtles and ospreys.'' At another point, he argues that migrant women receive psychic benefits from working in a liberated environment and providing for their families back home. His evidence? The experiences of his maid.

The book's fatal flaw, however, is its off-kilter relationship with the business cycle. During boom times, antiglobalizers score political points by stoking fears of cultural debasement and environmental degradation. During leaner years, naked self-interest becomes the salient concern: in the current economic climate, American opponents of globalization talk less about its effect on the developing world and more about the offshore outsourcing of jobs...

...I received the news that Israel had killed Hamas leader Rantisi. Rantisi became in charge of Hamas in the Gaza strip after the killing of Sheikh Yassen. I think it was completely wrong timing to kill Rantisi. Not now at all.
First, Bush has just endorsed Sharon’s disengagement plan and enraged Arabs for accepting some settlements in the West Bank. Even though I personally think that the Sharon plan is a good step forward, it still angered Arab opinion. Now this will further fuel anger against the US since everyone believes that Sharon got a green light from Bush to carry this operation even though the US State Department denied this.
Second, what is most important to me is Iraq Iraq Iraq. Now the poisonous mix of baathists and wahabis in the Sunni triangle will have another legitimate reason for their fight. In addition, by killing Rantisi, this mix will be more successful in turning more and more sunnis against the US, not mentioning Sadr’s Shitte supporters and other moderate Shittes.
If Sharon did indeed act alone, I would like to tell him these words: wrong wrong wrong, why didn’t you think about the situation in Iraq?...

...Many of you are familiar with the lawsuit that Air America filed against MultiCultural Radio Broadcasting Inc. after MultiCultural pulled Air America off the air in Chicago. Air America won a temporary restraining order against MultiCultural, forcing them to put Air America back on the air. . . It turns out there's more to MultiCultural than meets the eye. The CEO Arthur Liu, a Republican supporter, retained the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher -- a firm that lists Ken Starr and Ted Olsen as its alumni.

This is a right-wing blackout, and we can't let it happen...

...While [PFC Keith Matthew Maupin's] captors don't explicitly reference the 3rd Geneva Convention or other international covenants by name, they certainly incorporate these principles as they're found in Islamic law:

"We have taken one of the U.S. soldiers hostage," the narrator [of the video depicting Maupin] said.

"He is in good health and being treated based on the tenets of Islamic law for the treatment of soldiers taken hostage. We will keep him until we trade him for our prisoners in the custody of the U.S. enemy. We want them to know -- and the whole world to know -- that when we took him in, he came out of his tank holding a white flag and he lay face down on the ground, just like other soldiers."

Analysis: This is interesting for a few reasons. First, the conventional wisdom has been that the Iraqis would not follow the laws of war in their insurgency. That has been true in some situations, like the mutilation of the four contractors two weeks ago in Fallujah. However, both the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi insurgents appear to be following some codes of conduct with respect to the treatment of U.S. soldiers in captivity. Self-interest is probably animating this decision by the Iraqis. They probably want to encourage reciprocity, given the large numbers of Iraqi soldiers and insurgents in U.S. custody. The Iraqis may also be concerned about reprisals, both from U.S. forces and from the Iraqi justice system if they're ever captured.

Of course, the Iraqi insurgents continue to violate the law of war in many other situations...They often hide in protected sites like mosques and schools and hospitals, putting Iraqi civilians in the crosshairs as a consequence. Iraqi insurgents use indiscriminate IEDs which are as likely to kill Iraqis or foreign civilians as U.S. soldiers. And the list goes on. But this story adds at least one counterexample of where the Iraqis are following the law of armed conflict...

A Muslim cleric who urged his followers to "rejoice in the Madrid bombings" has been booted out of the country.

Yahia Cherif was convicted of "Proselytism in favour of radical Islam" and of having "active relations with a national or international Islamic movement linked to organisations promoting terrorist acts." He was also found guilty of calling for a jihad which would endanger French national security.

Cherif, who preached in Brest, Brittany, was deported to his native Algeria.

France's determination to tackle imans who urge their followers to jihad contrasts sharply with Britain, where several radical clerics preach hatred with impunity. Though scorned by the majority of their community, hardline clerics like Abu Hamza continue to incite violence, despite popular calls for their imprisonment or deportation.

France's action will only increase pressure on Britain to get tough on hatemongering clerics - and could prove to be another headache for Tony Blair and home secretary David Blunkett.

...Beyond the fact if what happened in Falluja was right or wrong.. I think battalion 36 must be punished .... what did they mean by ‘refusing to fight’ ? what will happen if the coalition forces decide to fight Al-Mahdi militia( the thieves! ) ? Will another battalion say “ No..we don’t fight Iraqis” ..Huh.. they don’t fight insurgents.. they don’t fight Muqtada’s scum.. they don’t fight anyone!! Then why they are soldiers.. what’s their duty? Receiving salaries monthly and go back home? Damn it.. those lazy stupid men, how will they get the job of defending their country in the future?.. How can they keep Iraq safe and secure?...