Hey, Homeland Security: Will ya just listen to this, please? by Omar Khan (csmonitor.com, 05/03/05) is one of those sensible proposals to make currently boneheaded Homeland Security airport practices efficient and sensible.

Which it currently isn't.

I like the part of this article in which one of the security supervisors is getting delayed by such checks, and there is NOTHING the security personnel can do about it, because the current system is so pathetic.

This is a good, short read.

Baghdad Burning: the hostage crisis (riverbendblog.blogspot.com) is about the non-existent hostage crisis that was covered in western media as if it were a real event. I've read references to the alleged hostage taking of dozens of Shias in a town in the western press, and am shocked that no one investigated to be sure it was real, despite the conditions in Iraq. GO READ THIS. Yes, the BBC recently put out some articles explaining that bodies recently found in a river aren't those of any alleged hostages, because no one has been reported missing where the hostages were allegedly taken.

Riverbend's blog is very informative, and she has some great insights of the sort that never make it to the U.S. newspapers.

Marla died. Marla was a young activist who founded a group to help Iraqi civilians called CIVIC Worldwide. She recently died in Iraq, along with others from her organization. Raed in the Middle: Remembering Marla Ruzicka has more information.

This is extremely sad. As is so much news from Iraq...

*

One sad thing is all of the unproductive hate mail Raed received in response to his tribute to Marla. Not only is poor Raed risking his life to document civilian losses in Iraq, but he has people demanding that he make loyalty oaths and denounce all Iraqi resistance, especially so-called insurgents. The demands and insults are pointless and unproductive: they won't make Raed safer, they won't bring Marla back, they won't help move their non-profit's work forward.

It's unfortunate that he has to deal with nutcases on all sides.

Who are the random Iraq checkpoints working for? Christian Science Monitor Blog | Notebook: Iraq Archive March, 2005 describes a foreign journalist's frightening experiences with American checkpoints.

"You're driving along and you see a couple of soldiers standing by the side of the road - but that's a pretty ubiquitous sight in Baghdad, so you don't think anything of it. Next thing you know, soldiers are screaming at you, pointing their rifles and swiveling tank guns in your direction, and you didn't even know it was a checkpoint.

If it's confusing for me - and I'm an American - what is it like for Iraqis who don't speak English?"

US (mostly) lets Iraq form its cabinet (csmonitor.com, 04/28/05). This is a great article on how the U.S.' past meddling with Iraq is impacting the ongoing efforts to form an Iraqi government, though it doesn't put it that way.

It describes current meddling - phone calls, political pressure, chiding from Condi.

It describes past meddling, though not in enough detail to make it clear that the current interim government is set up based on rules laid out by the U.S., and the inherent weakness of using a U.S. structured system to prevent majority rule is complicating the government's legitimacy.

It mentions that "government by the numbers," the factionalized system inherited by the U.S., may result in years of instability. It even mentions that historical U.S. support for the Kurds is complicating negotiations by allowing the Kurds to bargain out of proportion to their numbers, confident in U.S. backing.

I am not saying that proportional representation is an evil thing: I'm saying it's going to be difficult to legitimize because it was imposed by a self-interested foreign power with a minority ally. I'm saying it's unusual among democracies, which complicates its acceptance by majorities who will experience minority veto. I'm saying it raises questions about why different groups forced together by the British years ago must be forced to act as one nation now, even though some groups (most notably the Kurds) want their own country.

While we're on the subject of how tough it is for women in Afghanistan, let's look at this: Taliban coming in from cold (csmonitor.com, 04/28/05).

President Karzai offered an olive branch to rank-and-file Taliban fighters last year and said all but a core group of 150 militants wanted for human-rights violations would be able to rejoin the political process. 'Not only the Taliban but all Afghans who are afraid of their past political affiliation can return home and resume their normal lives,' says Jawed Luddin, a Karzai spokesman. 'It is the time to rebuild our country.'

On the surface, this sounds like a nice step toward peace. However, peace generally requires that war criminals be brought to justice, and it's highly unlikely that the myriad atrocities done during the Taliban's long reign were performed by a mere 150 militants.

Other nations, such as Argentina, which let war criminals on the loose who had been prematurely forgiven by the government have failed to advance: the burdens of the crimes left unresolved have been too much for civil society to bear. The Afghan people have surely been through enough of an ordeal already, and don't need to bump into their torturers and the people who executed their relatives walking free in the streets.

The current Afghan government may think that it cannot afford to hold people accountable for their crimes during this tenuous and decisive time, but if it can't now, it may never be able to.

Why things haven't improved much for women in Afghanistan since the election: To understand why things are still dismal, you need to go back and look at how the candidates ran. BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Silence over Afghan women's rights (news.bbc.co.uk, 10/07/04) describes the horrific societal conditions which lead to women's lives being ruined by male relatives and husbands (or their lack), yet which weren't touched upon by politicians for fear of backlash. In a country with 40% of voters being female, one would hope that there would be some movement toward improved conditions. But no. No one stuck their proverbial neck out, figuring women didn't have a choice.

That doesn't say much about democracy. Not much that's good, anyway.

Still winning hearts and minds around the world: BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Afghan civilians die in air raid (news.bbc.co.uk). Yes, this is a small incident, but it's one of many, and they're adding up in the public's list of things to be angry about.

One of the more entertaining things about this article is this quote:

"All possible efforts are taken to prevent non-combatant injuries and deaths," the US military said in a statement issued from their base at Bagram.

All possible efforts, EXCEPT for wildly throwing bombs when civilians are around, it appears.

The U.S. is losing its popularity (such that it was) and influence in the region, and small incidents like this are contributing to that decline.