diachronic's Blog tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636 2010-08-30T01:51:32Z Movable Type Pro 4.21-en A sutra, leaked at random from 'Ziusudra' tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.348862 2010-08-23T22:55:57Z 2010-08-30T01:51:32Z diachronic the friendly States, Assyria, Mexico, Disney World, 
  • clean, well-surveilled states, dreamlike in the petroleum dawn

where are the once secure CENTO seats of power
in which even the deceitful Shia of Persopolis

when the Shia lion lay with the Sunni lamb
Ishtar                                                                                              
descended to hell                                                                           
and came back a star; Lahore shone bright consumed by a harem of fire, the Water of Life
Wellheads of civilization distilled into lighter fluid
EtOH souses the fear inherent in mortality's every oppressive                                            moment                   
(Siduri, breaking into my parents' liquor cabinet,)

                                                                                                                     substance abuse policy objectives
Urania empties her urn on Karachi
 Ziusudra survived the flood of emotions      I didn't The canal-keepers saw their intricate network disappear, that had endured and given tongue to ungrateful millenia.  
Phantasm of hope                                                                                                                        Marshes drained to defy the elements and the index of our mortality, salinity ratio of tears
becomes Saddam's American rain of fake-fertilizer Stukas
Cleanse the law. From your lips. The network growing in the cavern of your buccal cavity
blitzkrieging the descendants of the Annunaki
I have the documents here



]]> The "Civilian Expeditionary Force" tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.342271 2010-07-01T02:33:58Z 2010-07-01T02:45:55Z diachronic Civilian Conservation Corps. Obama wants a "Civilian Expeditionary Force.".


What has the Democratic Party become?]]> The triumvirs tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.341151 2010-06-24T12:41:46Z 2010-06-24T13:05:12Z I find it symbolically apt that two and a half key Republicans have given the most eloquent and prompt praise for Obama's decision to replace McChyrstal for Petraeus. They speak for their entire party, it seems.it is symbolically apt, perhaps,... diachronic wo and a half key Republicans have given the most eloquent and prompt praise for Obama's decision to replace McChyrstal for Petraeus. They speak for their entire party, it seems.
it is symbolically apt, perhaps, that I am not entirely sure which party they are speaking for, though this may just be my own denseness. Or maybe Obama's settlement- a "bipartisan" consensus- is coalescing. 

Though none of the senators would name specific civilian leaders who should be replaced, McCain suggested "re-uniting the Crocker-Petraeus team," a reference to former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who served in Baghdad while Petraeus headed up military operations in the country.
The current ambassador to Afghanistan, retired Gen. Karl Eikenberry, had a notoriously rocky relationship with McChrystal.
Nevertheless, all three senators praised Obama's decision to accept McChrystal's resignation. Graham had particularly harsh words for the other military officers quoted in the piece.
"You let yourself and your Army down," he said. "The language you used, the cavalier attitude, the disrespect ... was unacceptable. This was a low point, in my view, for the armed forces in a very long time."
McCain predicted a smooth confirmation hearing for Petraeus, "probably the fastest in the history of the Armed Services Committee."

I highly doubt that this is a desirable settlement. But without question, the words of these three please him more than any others'.

]]> CIA Intelligence Shows: CIA Drone Strikes Help Al Qaeda tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.338437 2010-06-03T17:46:25Z 2010-06-03T20:30:26Z Seems some CIA officers (of "mid-rank and below") are not happy with the drone program in Pakistan and elsewhere, despite the Agency's increasing use of it:....the CIA officers expressing concern about the blowback effects of the drone policy are "mid-grade... diachronic are not happy with the drone program in Pakistan and elsewhere, despite the Agency's increasing use of it:
....the CIA officers expressing concern about the blowback effects of the drone policy are "mid-grade and below".
They learned about the impact of drone strikes on recruiting by extremist leaders in Pakistan from intelligence gathered by CIA and the National Security Agency, which intercepts electronic communications, according to Addicott.
They have informed high-level CIA officials about their concerns that the programme is backfiring, Addicott told IPS.
(Addicott is former legal adviser to U.S. Special Forces, and Director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX.)
What do the "high-level CIA officials" think of its in-house data (supplied by its lower-level "drones") showing that its flagship program is backfiring?
"The people at the top are not believers [in the program]," said Addicott, referring to the CIA. "They know that the objective is not going to be achieved."
So then: Why does the program continue to escalate?
Addicott said the drone programme has been driven by President Barack Obama, rather than by the CIA. "Obama's trying to show people that we're winning," he added.
What else could the CIA do, that might be more productive?
All the other tools that might be used to try to reduce al Qaeda influence in Pakistan and elsewhere take a long time, require cooperation among multiple actors and have no powerful political constituency behind them, Zenko observed.

That last reason Zenko cites is the one that matters.]]> Baseless Accusations tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.337742 2010-05-30T18:23:00Z 2010-05-30T18:37:56Z diachronic Well, for all President Obama's real or perceived failings,  his base has yet not collapsed. 
But Japan's PM's has.

]]> Rift in the Alliance: Pentagon Contemplates War on Pakistan tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.337720 2010-05-29T21:56:25Z 2010-05-29T23:10:11Z Barack Obama , a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the mold of Henry Kissinger (who urged Nixon to engage in secret bombing of Cambodia into smoking ruins, which led to Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge), has instructed the Pentagon to draw... diachronic has instructed the Pentagon to draw up plans to bomb Afghanistan's neighbor to the south:
The U.S. military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas, according to senior military officials.

Now this is stupid and criminal on so many levels, that I confess i can barely keep myself calm enough to list the ways in which it is so. The current drone program Obama has conducted in Pakistan is itself a war crime, according to experts. 
But let's leave Obama's criminality out of it, and focus on his stupidity (and not even the stupidity mentioned in WaPo itself, written by someone with such a shrivelled organ of reason that he does not note the absurdity of this a mere paragraph or two down:
At the same time, the administration is trying to deepen ties to Pakistan's intelligence officials in a bid to head off any attack by militant groups. The United States and Pakistan have recently established a joint military intelligence center on the outskirts of the northwestern city of Peshawar, and are in negotiations to set up another one near Quetta, the Pakistani city where the Afghan Taliban is based, according to the U.S. military officials.
Let's leave these and other absurdities alone for now. Let's go to the roots of the so-called 'strategy' in the War in this region.
.  Why, it's getting al Qaeda/Taliban in a pincer move, of course. And the pincer is made up of us and....Pakistan's army.
I quote the man himself:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It is important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al-Qaida. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, they are rugged, and they are often ungoverned. That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not and cannot provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al-Qaida and the violent extremists within its borders. 

]]> godsend to our two War Presidents, elaborating on the strategy:
then of course there has to be the component that President Obama explained today of working with our Pakistani partners. This is their territory, they have existing organizations, an army that they're very proud of, other elements that in some areas have already been on the offensive. In Bajaur, in Mohmand, two of the areas in the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas in which they had made inroads against the syndicate, really, of all of these different elements -- not just the Pakistani Taliban, but also the other extremist elements that are allied with al Qaida in that area.
Well, that was March 2009, and it was pure bullshit. Yet a supine nation, used to self-defeating strategies, and Democrats, so quick to identify lies from President Bush's mouth, showed that they are suckers on a par with the morons who believed fairy tales about Saddam Hussein.
Now that the rift may be sufficiently plain, I want to consider two more 'rifts,' that will begin to remedy the situation. 
One: I want the rift that separates those in America from their senses to close. That  means NO MORE SUPPORT for this insane war.
And two: Since I am not so stupid as to think the leaders in this country, and in particular those within the Democratic Party, to deserving of, or capable of reciprocating our trust, I want a 'rift' to open within the Democratic Party, in which the 'pragmatists,' the failed Republicans ( e.g., Arlen Specter), the failed Democrats (e.g., Joe Lieberman), and the plain and simple failures (from President Obama on down) are  abandoned. NOW.
Otherwise, we are enabling wars without end, and war criminals, and destroying ourselves, and vast swaths of humanity, for nothing more than President Obama's political ambitions.]]> Carville Wants Obama's DOJ to Launch a Criminal Investigation of BP. Obama's DOJ? tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.337259 2010-05-26T13:42:48Z 2010-05-26T13:57:40Z James Carville, like Joe Sestak, must be a Democrat who wants to make Obama look bad.He wants Obama's DOJ to behave as if they have spines:Carville said the administration needs "to launch a criminal investigation -- the Attorney General needs... diachronic must be a Democrat who wants to make Obama look bad.
He wants Obama's DOJ to behave as if they have spines:
Carville said the administration needs "to launch a criminal investigation -- the Attorney General needs to investigate criminal negligence on the part of BP and what went on at MMS (the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that regulates offshore drilling). There's a thousand things that he could do."

]]> Is a Specter Haunting the White House? tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.336959 2010-05-24T16:32:50Z 2010-05-24T16:49:47Z Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner is calling for an investigation into whether the Obama WH tried to buy off Joe Sestak with an Admin job after it looked like Obama favorite Arlen Specter might be primaried out by Sestak (as indeed... diachronic Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner is calling for an investigation into whether the Obama WH tried to buy off Joe Sestak with an Admin job after it looked like Obama favorite Arlen Specter might be primaried out by Sestak (as indeed he was).


Aside from the possible legal/ethical issues, it is, if true, emblematic of the kind of President we have: One who would have made a similar offer to keep Ned Lamont from beating Joe Lieberman in the CT primary in '06. 


]]> Iran of Dreams, Iran of DNIal tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.336653 2010-05-21T00:07:02Z 2010-05-21T01:16:03Z Let's revisit the recent past, still too recent, perhaps, for us to savor its sublime stupidity:Spring 2007: A National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was expected to be delivered to Congress during this period, but is repeatedly postponed as intelligence agencies... diachronic savor its sublime stupidity:
Spring 2007: A National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was expected to be delivered to Congress during this period, but is repeatedly postponed as intelligence agencies re-assess information about Iran's nuclear program.
August 2007: President Bush says, "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." The latest National Intelligence Estimate says, "we assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007."
September 2007: U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director Michael Hayden, begin a reassessment of their information on Iran, according to unnamed officials quoted in the New York Times. The newspaper says White House officials knew at the time that the intelligence agencies were reviewing their conclusions, but did not know until later that those conclusions were drastically being changed.
October 2007: President Bush says, "we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
November 2007: A final draft of the National Intelligence Estimate is presented to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It concludes that Iran stopped its weapons program in late 2003 and since then has shown no signs of resuming it.
December 2007: A day after the NIE is made public, President Bush says he was first told by Director of Intelligence Michael McConnell in August that there was new intelligence about Iran's nuclear program, but that he wasn't told what that new intelligence was at the time. President Bush, in a press conference, says he still regards Iran as "dangerous." He asks reporters, "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?"]]>  Let's try again to recapture that strange moment:
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush said Tuesday that a new intelligence finding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons work in 2003 had not lessened his concerns about Iran, emphasizing that the report provided "a warning signal," not grounds for reassurance. He added that the United States would keep all options on the table when dealing with Tehran.
"I have said Iran is dangerous," Bush said a day after the release of the National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus of the 16 U.S. spy agencies, "and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world - quite the contrary."......
The document was careful to describe the varying levels of confidence behind its assumptions. It said that Tehran probably would keep its weapons-building options open, but that the spy agencies "do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
But the estimate declares with "high confidence" that the military-run weapons program was closed down in 2003 and that it remained closed.
The estimate also says that Iran might still be able to produce a nuclear weapon by the middle of next decade.

This reminiscence comes at the moment of the current DNI's resignation. Idle curiousity caused me to look up Philip Giraldi's article on May 3 from Antiwar.com, where he also looks back, as it happens, at this moment :
The most recent NIE on Iran was issued in December 2007. Its conclusions were released to the public in a heavily redacted nine page summary report "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities." The key conclusion, one that attracted a great deal of criticism, was that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and had not restarted it subsequently, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work."
Critics of the report responded with a form of analysis made famous by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, noting that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They were, in other words, noting that the general lack of solid information on developments inside Iran might mean that a secret program could easily have been missed. The intelligence community conceded that that might be the case, but it also noted that it had definitive evidence, high confidence, that the weapons program had been halted and no evidence whatsoever that it had been started up again.In subsequent testimony before Congress and to the media, the Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has essentially stood by the conclusions of the Iran NIE, confirming that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. In the February 2010 declassified version of the Annual Threat Assessment delivered to Congress by the office of the DNI, it was reported that "We continue to assess that Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to produce nuclear weapons." It is believed that the recent Iranian scientist defector Shahram Amiri has provided information that enabled Blair to declare with confidence that the weapons program continues to be suspended. A March 2010 Congressionally mandated annual DNI report in response to the Intelligence Authorization Act's requirement to monitor the acquisition of technology to develop weapons of mass destruction concluded that "We do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to produce nuclear weapons."It is widely believed in intelligence circles in Washington that the office of the Director of National Intelligence has commissioned a new NIE on Iran. The supposition is that the new NIE "will get it right" and come down on the side of confirming that the Iranians intend to construct a nuclear weapon, thereby justifying the possible exercise of a military option by Washington to preempt that development. But the evidence is not supporting the case that the White House would like to see made. There have been reports that the new NIE, which had been expected in the fall of 2009, has already been postponed twice, once in December, and again in March. This is alleged to be due to the difficulty in establishing a consensus on various issues, but it is more likely reflective of analysts' resistance to pressure coming from the White House to come up with a report that has language that will permit the President to pursue a full range of options in dealing with Iran, options that would include going to war. There is understandable concern lest the estimate become something similar to the 2002 Iraq NIE, which greatly exaggerated the level of threat and led to a war that today even Republican Congressmen are describing as a "horrible mistake."
Interesting, isn't it? Surreal times are here again.]]> Anocracy! tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.335532 2010-05-13T04:25:46Z 2010-05-13T05:43:08Z I love this word. It is a kind of abstract onamatopeia. It is a kaleidoscope, a mirror in which Washington appears as it is, not as how we perceive it, nor how it perceives itself... Obama and his truculent Secretary... diachronic War  (the referent of the anachronistic title needs no clarification), and his Afghan friend Karzai, all appear in this mirror as they appear to the rest of the world- as the anocrats of this world.
What is anocracy? you ask. Well you might- my dictionary does not stock this word yet, and it may be that yours does not either. And yet, just as buzz makes the mouth tingle with its meaning, so anocracy, spoken properly, conveys its meaning through its subtle labialization -but not too subtle, I think, to be understood.
If you are in need of less sensuous definition, here goes: "a weak central government." You won't be surprised that it was introduced to the English tongue by a RAND Corp. report.
And here is anocracy!]]> Pakistan is Our Chechnya tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.334304 2010-05-05T19:12:38Z 2010-05-05T19:23:57Z So, apparently, the Pakistani Taliban are striking here.Give it five or ten years. Russia is our precedent in this self-inflicted predicament, as it has been in Afghanistan. Russia has fought, for many years, a grotesque war in one of of... diachronic Give it five or ten years. Russia is our precedent in this self-inflicted predicament, as it has been in Afghanistan. Russia has fought, for many years, a grotesque war in one of of its Islamic dependencies, and has received cataclysms of terror in return.
This will force Obama to double down still further on his tragic war against Pakistani intelligence agencies, various stripes of 'Taliban,' Greater Pashtunistan. Although the war serves no conceivable strategic purpose and cannot be won, it is politically necessary- for reasons we have already almost forgotten.

]]> NATO sunset tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.328796 2010-04-07T20:25:28Z 2010-04-07T20:44:05Z diachronic Ukraine decided to abandon plans to join NATO, marking a definitive end to  NATO's long march East across Europe.
Today, NATO has been dealt another blow, in which its budding Empire in Central Asia has lost a province: The Tulip Revolution has proved to be just  another case of tulip mania..
But never fear:
The upheaval raised questions about the future of an important American air base that operates in Kyrgyzstan in support of the NATO mission in nearby Afghanistan. American officials said that as of Wednesday evening the base was functioning normally.




]]> It's (Always) April Fool's Day in Tehran tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.328013 2010-04-01T22:41:23Z 2010-04-02T19:23:26Z diachronic I have to wonder....

Juan Cole gives the following report of the latest on the disputed Iraqi elections:
Sadrists are Holding Referendum on PM; Allawi says Would go to Iran, form Gov't of National UnityThe party of Muqtada al-Sadr in the Iraqi parliament, with 39 seats, intends to hold a referendum on which prime ministerial candidate to support on this Friday and Saturday, according to al-Hayat writing in Arabic....
Al-Hayat also reports that the Iraqiya list of Iyad Allawi is miffed that it was not invited to Iran this past weekend. He offered to go to Iran to work for a coalition, he said. Allawi expressed a willingness to go to Tehran if that is where the government is being formed. Both al-Maliki and Allawi are now showing flexibility and the willingness for the first time to form a government of national unity. 
Well, that's just great. "Willing to go to Tehran if that is where the government is being formed." (A government of national unity," no less. Which doubtless explains why it has to be formed outside the country.)This, reported without a hint of irony, as if Tehran is where people go these days for amicable settlements to disputed elections. (Maybe the irony- or ironies- are lost on Iraqis.)
But suppose it were true, and not an April Fool's Day joke on someone's part. 
OK, on to what we all thought would be Obama's signature war, the effort to prop up Karzai's fraudulent regime, and in the process keep Pakistan from tottering under the virulence of Talibs of both the indigenous and Afghan variety, plus whatever al-Qaeda remnants linger in the region. An editorial in a Pakistani newspaper says that neither Pakistan nor its northern neighbor is the true object of Obama's foreign policy in the region, because whatever failures occur there can plausibly be blamed on Bush's many years of mismanagement. OK, suppose that's true (the underlying postulate, that the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq are really about American political jockeying for advantage, is surely correct). Where is Obama really staking his Presidency? On Iran:

 US efforts failing to stabilise Afghanistan and Iraq before the end of his presidency could feasibly be blamed on their having been inherited from the previous regime. By direct contrast, however, the nuclearisation of Iran would not only derail any Obama re-election bid, it would, from a US perspective, represent the biggest American foreign policy blunder of this century. 
Meaning thereby that history would be quick to judge Obama as the man under whose watch an increased risk of war in the Middle East became a reality, under whose watch regional proliferation concerns were unleashed, regarding both state and non-state actors. In short, the man under whose watch the Middle East was reshaped in terms neither amenable to Tel Aviv nor to Washington. Indeed, as a 2008 US National Intelligence Council report noted: "Iran's growing nuclear capabilities are already partly responsible for the surge of interest in nuclear energy in the Middle East." Such setbacks the US might not feasibly overcome for at least one generation.
This explains why certain US experts on Iran have been calling for Washington to keep on the negotiating table the threat of military retaliation against rogue Iranian actions, including a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
 Never mind that we went to war with a neighbor (and archenemy) of Iran's, on the pretext that it (Iraq! Does anyone remember this?) had nukes, and which now, if Mr. Cole and/or his sources are not playing an April Fool's Day prank, anoints its political leaders in Tehran. That was the last Administration's war, and this Administration is not going to lose its laser-like focus on the true threat to national security. (Ms. Husain is appropriately dismissive of the current Afghanistan effort.)
Miranda Husain is a good writer, and she is shrewd re the true nature of Obama's 'commitment' to her region. Is it really April Fool's Day?
]]> Blindingly Obvious Reflections on the State of Law in Iraq tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.327622 2010-03-30T15:44:05Z 2010-03-30T16:22:37Z I know I am saying the blindingly obvious. But it needs to be said: "De-Baathification," the dismissal of the bureaucracy and military in the first days of the Occupation, precipitated the carnage that led to civil war a few years... diachronic proven track record of disaster.
And who is heading the "de-Baathification"  now? None other than Ahmed Chalabi, the shadiest character in the ME, and the man who convinced Cheney that flowers would be laid at the feet of our Army.

 We have seen, encouragingly, a sense of Iraqi nationalism that has been literally the only glue that has held a country recovering from civil war together. That nationalism, which (somewhat) transcends Sunni-Shia divides, gave Allawi his bare plurality in the election, and OF COURSE former "Baathists" were among his coalition. If you were a civil servant in Iraq before the fall of Baghdad, you were a Baath party member. If you were in the Army, you were a "Baathist" (hence the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi Army. Neocons, Feith, Perle et al., list this under "mistakes were made.") If you were a civil servant, or had aspirations/qualifications to be such, where were you, if not in the Baath Party? In Iran.( Hence the neocons' grudging "mistakes were made.") And the Iranian roots of the State of Law coalition were clearly on display last week: ]]> Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that 'informed sources' told its reporters that Ali al-Adib, a leader of al-Maliki's State of Law coalition, recently met Muqtada al-Sadr in Qom, Iran, though they have not yet closed a deal. Al-Sadr has 38 seats in parliament and his bloc is the largest single group of seats in the Shiite fundamentalist Iraqi National Alliance, which has 70 seats. Then, al-Maliki is said to have returned to Baghdad from Tehran, accompanied by al-Adib and Abdul Hamid al-Zuhairi (both from the State of Law list) and Jalal al-Din al-Saghir and Hadi al-Amiri of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
Al-Maliki is said to have been among a big party of Iraqi officials in Tehran the day before yesterday. They went there, al-Hayat said, because there was too much danger of being listened in on in Iraq. Presumably what is actually being asserted here is that the US has sophisticated signals intelligence and has widely tapped phones, so that in Baghdad any attempt at coalition-formation would be immediately picked up by US intelligence. Since the US is widely thought to be backing Allawi's secular Iraqiya list, it would be undesirable from al-Maliki's point of view for them to overhear his negotiations with other lists. Thus, they went off to Iran.
This is actually unintentionally hilarious. Al-Maliki and the government we have sunk blood and billions into, in order to obtain an "ally" in the war against "Terror" (i.e., Iran), does not want to suffer the indignities wreaked upon the American citizen by the FISA reforms, goes to the nation that is the object of our paranoia, in order to escape the consequences of our paranoia.
This episode recalls the episode of LBJ and Nixon wiretapping each other and the Paris negotiations intended to end the Vietnam war, but both these parties intending to forestall any possibility of such succeeding, Nixon because the War was unpopular with the Democratic base, and LBJ because he despised the Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, who was running to take LBJ's place. I.e, intelligence efforts that produced results exactly the opposite of what, on the face of it, might be expected to be its aim- prolonging war, helping our "enemies" and hurting ourselves-not helping to end (or even "win") the war.
So al-Maliki and co went to Iran to escape our intelligence agencies. 
This, if true, implies that we do not have accurate intel sources in Iran. Which would be a very interesting fact, in itself. But that is another story.



]]> In the Shadow of Iraq tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/diachronic//3636.327328 2010-03-28T21:31:46Z 2010-03-28T22:35:06Z diachronic Obama's speech there today, in light of the recent events in Iraq:
At least four Sunni Muslim candidates who appear to have won parliamentary seats on the winning ticket of secular leader Ayad Allawi have become targets of investigation by security forces reporting to the narrowly defeated Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, according to interviews Saturday with relatives, Iraqi security forces and the U.S. military.
All four candidates ran in Diyala province, a restive mainly Sunni area north of Baghdad. One candidate who won more than 28,000 votes is being held incommunicado in a Baghdad jail, two other winners are on the run and the whereabouts of the fourth, a woman, are unknown.
Maliki alluded to the cases in his televised refusal Friday to accept a loss in the March 7 parliamentary elections, saying of unnamed rival candidates: "What would happen if some of them are in prison now on terror accusations and they participated in the elections and might win?"

It is remarkable how al-Maliki's tune has changed, as American forces abandon the country. And we will abandon Afghanistan, too. 







]]>