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.