Lately with everything that is happening in Iran, many people have become improvised "Iran Experts" on Tv and they continuously preach about the goodness of Moussavi and the Badness of the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad.

First, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we'll agree that for the most part we don't care about iranians. The only reason anybody the western media even covers the iranian elections is because of their oil reserves, their proximity to the oil reserves of Iraq, Koweit and Saudi Arabia, their proximity to Israel, their closeness to the Straits of Ormuz and ...oh our dependence on that oil for the functioning of our economy. Beyond that, Iranians could elect a naturalised Kim Jong Il as their next President and none of us would dare raise our heads long enough for our Starbucks lattes to go cold.

Second, Moussavi is not a reformer. He's not Iran's Obama as some have called him. A quick glance at his bio would convince anybody of that fact. He is perhaps Ahmadinejad Lite, but not the kind of leader that would take on the Theocratic Establishment to make Iran safe for capitalism.  

Third, Even if Moussavi was a reformer, he would be Iran's reformer. A president for the Iranians, as it should be and not a stooge of the West. And unfortunately being a local reformer means implementing an agenda that may have local traction but foreign opposition. This may include things that Western countries would object to. i.e: the continuation of the nuclear programme and continuous support for terrorist groups.  

So next time you see an "Iran Expert" on your favourite Tv channel going on about Iran... do some quick research before accepting the good guys vs. bad guys narrative.

What are Western soldiers doing in Afghanistan? Is it to "reconstruct" the country as some of our leaders keep telling us? Is it to root out Bin Laden? Does it matter still? Is it in preparation for the impending takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban? Is it to act as a potential shield given the tensions between the neighbouring countries of Pakistan and India and their WMDs?

Listening to recent pronouncements from our leaders, one wonders.

First President Barack Obama admitted to the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) in a recent interview that a "win" in Afghanistan (I am paraphrasing here) meant preventing the country from becoming a launching pad for attacks on the US and its allies. That is a very scaled down version of the lofty goal of George W. Bush which was among other things transplanting democracy to the Land of Burqas and Poppies.  

Then, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, speaking to Fareed Zakaria of CNN said: "Frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency! " Now that is as blunt as anybody can get. Then there are the increasingly reluctant European allies who view this mission as similar to that other doomed one in Iraq.

So why is the West in Afghanistan given all these parameters?

I will venture some explanations here although as a word of caution, I don't accept these as valid reasons for stationing thousands of troops in a foreign country. I simply think this is what is guiding our leaders' decisions. So here goes...

I think first there is the WMD factor. India and Pakistan are at loggerheads over Kashmir and other recent entanglements including the Mumbai attacks. Pakistan is increasingly shaky given the military's power over the executive branch and the Intelligence services' links to insurgent groups. So since the worse case scenario of this situation is either a nuclear Pakistan leaking secrets to insurgents or a nuclear Pakistan going after a nuclear India, the West deeems it necessary to be present and ready to intervene. Here's why this does not work however: preventing any conflict between these two countries is a matter of diplomacy. There is no military deterence for nuclear armed enemies. The presence of foreign troops in either of these countries has in the past only served to rally the population againts the foreigners viewed as "invaders".

2- The perenial "let's get them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument: The Taliban is based in Afghanistan & Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other affiliate terror groups are also based in the Middle-East. So if they were to be fought and destroyed as units there, they will cease to be a threat to the West in the West. This argument works if one assumes that the Taliban, Al Qaeda and all the other groups that hold a deep hatred of Western societies are units that once destroyed in a specific geographic location can essentially be eliminated and prevented from threatening societies anywhere. Ever. This assumption however ignores centuries of colonial adventures that prove the exact opposite. Nihilistic organizations or ones that view their mission as their people's overarching cause tend to be very loosely structured. The guiding principle being their message. Once it catches on, leaders can be killed or jailed, bases can be ransacked, the message lives on. It becomes like a virus that can only be completely destroyed if all the infected victims are located, except as more are located, more are infected.  Think of the FLN in Algeria in the late 1950s and 1960s or the Mau Maus in Kenya in the 1950s or the ANC in South Africa or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the days of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Insurgencies succeed against traditional armies because insurgents know their terrain, insurgents know the locals, insurgents know the local languages, culture and customs and more importantly because insurgents have the ability to easily disappear when the fight overpowers them and resurface depending on the conditions on the ground. The history of Afghanistan is littered with corpses of foreign generals who thought the size of their armies or the power of their weapons would allow them to conquer what they saw as mountainous savages. That is perhaps why Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized that Afghans cannot be defeated in their own country.

So one has to wonder: why is Obama commiting lives and resources to Afghanistan when there are more pressing problems at home?

If the purpose of running for office is to acquire power and if the purpose of acquiring power is to do some sort of lasting public good with it, then it would be fair of the American people to expect Pres. Barack Obama's report card to show significant accomplishments by the time the 2010 congressional elections roll in.

After today's announcement of Al Franken  as the winner of last November's Minnesota Senate race, the Democrats now have 60 senate seats and 257 congressional seats, more than enough to push through the Democratic President's agenda. Any fears of a filibuster have now been eliminated. There is no longer a need to court Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins or any other so-called moderate Republican. The Democrats, if they only allow themselves to agree can now bring Americans single-payer Universal Healthcare, enact proper regulations of the financial industry, withdraw troops from Iraq, withdraw troops from a useless war in Afghanistan, confirm Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and much more...

But I suspect very few of those things will happen. Obama is a serial compromiser and Democrats and Progressives in general relish argument and debate even when it stands in the way of useful  and valuable accomplishments. And that's probably going to be the Legacy of the 111th Congresss: immense possibilities but very few tangible results. I would love to eat my words in a few months but I don't think I will.

http://daily44.wordpress.com

Many have been thinking it, now it's time we all said it.

 

Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic thinks so:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/the-gop-has-dec.html

So does this guy: http://daily44.wordpress.com

The Repubican party does not care about the country though that's for sure!

 

Now before you start sending me your hate mail, read this guy's post:

http://daily44.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/sanjay-gupta-is-an-opportunistic-dick/

I am only quoting him.

My favorite line in the post: "This is the kind of behavior pathological social-ladder climbers learn to perfect early. This is typical of  what the Canadian thinker John Ralston Saul calls a "courtier" or a "Voltaire bastard"; a man who either has no opinions of his own or is perfectly happy to substitute them with anything that can advance his carrier, create new friends that can advance his carrier or open doors to new carriers or new revenues."

Ok, that was just to get your attention. Blago is not innocent. But in the case of the Senate seat sale, he may not be all that guilty after all.

I posted this this guy's blog entry  (http://daily44.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/blagoobama-why-this-matters-and-doesnt/) a few days ago and got a lot of flack for it. Now I think the New York Times is wondering whether Fitzgerald's case is really all that air-tight! Was Blago just exercising his First Amendemen rights? What was he doing that other politicians don't do on a regular basis without getting in trouble for it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/us/politics/16legal.html?_r=1

 

Before you proclaim Rod Blagojevich guilty, read this...

http://daily44.wordpress.com

 

Hillary at State? Ahead of Bill Richardson a seasoned diplomat who negotiated with the North Koreans and Saddam Hussein?

Why? I think this guy: http://daily44.wordpress.com agrees with me.

I would add that John Kerry and Tom Daschle as the people who essentially shepperded Obama in the Senate deserved better prizes than Hillary. But I could be wrong.

 

...at leaving on a sour note.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites."

Looks like we better brace ourselves....

Did anybody notice that Hillary Clinton did not wear a flag pin last night and has not worn one consistently? If this is the badge of patriotism as the silly questions of late seem to indicate, why does she not get questionned on this? Why is this treatment reserved for Obama? Oooh wait... I think it's because the Liberal media supports Obama so they rerserve all the silly shenanigans for him and him alone.

Maureen Dowd seems to allude to animosity or at least lack of friendship between the Clintons and pretty much all Democratic big wigs including: Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter. These are also the people who may have a big influence on the remaining superdelegates. 
One can only hope she's right...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23dowd.html

Now I know I am getting ahead of myself here but after watching the Richardson endorsement, I think the Obama/Richardson ticket would be THE dream ticket of the general election. Richardson brings so much to the table to bolster Obama:
1-He has foreign policy experience
2-He has executive experience
3-He actually served in a successful administration
4-He speaks Spanish so he can work on getting the Latino vote in Tx, Arizona, CA, NM, NV,etc,...
5-He is a shrewd negotiator who can push Obama's proposal to negotiate with both friends and enemies. He actually negotiated with the North Koreans and Saddam.
6-He has less of the baggage of the Clinton days.

Now barring a miracle in which Clinton wins Penn, Indiana, North Carolina and WV, I think Edwards may well break his silence and endorse Obama as well before the end of the primary season. One can only hope...

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just said onABC's This Week that the nomination process is: "a delegate race" and she compared it to the general election as an electoral college votes race.

http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek

It would be helpful if some other prominent democrats like Howard Dean or Al Gore came out and made the same statement so we can stop these attempts by the Clinton campaign to move the goal-post while the game is in progress and suggest that only the popular vote counts or tht only wins in certain states are indicative of a nominee's strength,etc...

Now, one could make all kinds of very valid arguments about the democratic deficit of both the delegate race and the electoral college system. But those arguments or that re-jiging of the process should not impact an ongoing race. Otherwise it leaves the impression that the rules are being changed to favor the Establishment candidate.
 

You know, I find it offensive when people speak of Senator Obama as an empty suit. Even if I was not a supporter those words would be offensive. An Empty Suit to me would be an individual with no accomplishments to speak of, no real life experience to speak of, no real challenges they've overcome, nothing that warrants examination but their presentation: their empty suit.
Looking at Obama's life story one can only be both amazed and impressed about what he's achieved so far. Harvard Law, Constitutional Law professor, Illinois senate, US Senate and no silver spoon in his crib either... It there was one it would have been a wooden spoon, actually.

If he was not running for president he would clearly be viewed as a successful American.
But if the implication is that he should be more "experienced" to run for President, it begs the question: what kind of expericence? And do the other candidates have it to not merit the "Empty Suit" label?
To my mind, nobody is really experienced enough to be President except for incumbents. So the question should not be "Is so-and-so experienced enough to be President?" it should be  "Has so-and-so's life experience prepared them for the challenges of the presidency?"
And clearly on that basis, a variety of life experiences would be deemed relevant, not only time spent in the halls of Congress or on the Senate floor.