U.S. Toll In Iraq Reaches 3,000 (washingtonpost.com, 12/31/06).

Not even the government that the US is propping up likes our plans for them. Talabani Criticizes Study on Iraq - washingtonpost.com (washingtonpost.com, 12/10/06). The U.S. would like to "embed" its own soldiers into the Iraqi army's ranks, decide whether or not ex-Baath party members can hold which jobs, and other major governance issues. The Iraqi president is not pleased.

"What will be left of the Iraqi sovereignty if the Iraqi army becomes a tool in the hand of foreign officers who came form abroad?" Talabani said.

Talabani also said the report gives the impression its authors believe Iraq is a 'colony' to be dealt 'as they will.'

If the Iraqi president isn't convinced, it will be difficult for the US to "win hearts and minds" of everyone else there.

The media notices that Afghanistan still exists: film at 11. Afghanistan: What's Gone Wrong? - World Opinion Roundup (washingtonpost.com, 9/06) is a mini-retrospective with comments from international newspapers and US reader comments about the US' failure to nation-build Afghanistan into a place the US could hold up as a model. The Taliban and other warlord-type forces are thriving; only the capital appears to be under the US-backed government's control; the cultural benefits to women and peace benefits to everyone aren't in effect over most of the land; and many of the rebuilding promises that were made in the past have not been delivered.

The U.S. reader comments are entertaining, as always. It's the usual recent mix of:
(a) these people are hopeless (and so our failure isn't our fault)
(b) it was a great idea and we were completely entitled to involve ourselves, but our military campaign was mismanaged
(c) our PR wasn't good enough
(d) how dare you doubt the US' cause - you are hurting the troops, and
(e) wow, this was just as bad as we thought it would be, it really ought to stop now.

People rarely ask the Afghans what they want in these discussions, which makes them all the more curious as an exercise.

Time to rethink the idea of attacking a tactic. George Soros | Blinded by a Concept (truthout.org, 8/31/06).

The failure of Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One of those weaknesses is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.

One of the interesting things about the war on terror has been an idea, frequently quoted by military personnel in newspapers, that civilian casualties caused by "good guys" are regrettable, but fundamentally different than civilian casualties caused by "bad guys" - it is supposed to be the intent, not the result, that matters. This results in complete incomprehension in why the families of victims do not instantly perceive our misplaced goodwill and forgive us.

A fresh perspective on this situation could help. At least, it couldn't make things worse.

Lebanon event timeline, for those who have lost track.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Day-by-day: Lebanon crisis - week seven (just up through 8/24/06 as of this posting).

Critics Decry "Destroy and Lend" Policy, by Emad Mekay (truthout.org, from IPS, 8/31/06). There are a variety of valid concerns about the practices that international lending and finance organizations engage in when a country is devastated. You may have already read about the IMF and World Bank, and how their policies often stagnate the development of the countries they are 'helping,' while turning those countries into profit centers for foreign investors.

There is some concern about how that sort of approach may play out in Lebanon.

Just like Iraq in 2003, a foreign country came in and destroyed the country's infrastructure, only to give foreign companies and institutions power in the subsequent reconstruction efforts, they said.

This sounds an awful lot like articles I once read in U.S. construction magazines about how great it was that U.S. companies were going to rebuild the parts of Bosnia that the U.S. had bombed, including schools and hospitals.

US Deaths in Iraq Surpass 9/11 Toll (truthout.org, originally from CNN, 9/03/06):

As the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States approaches, another somber benchmark has just been passed.

The announcement Sunday of four more U.S. military deaths in Iraq raises the death toll to 2,974 for U.S. military service members in Iraq and in what the Bush administration calls the war on terror.

News like this makes it even stranger that I know people who thought the war was over after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" press conference.

Where the war on terror has brought us.

While I've been relieved at the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, the violence in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and countless other countries continues. Many of these conflicts are in demand for independence of one sort or another, but independence and a desire for self-determination aren't universally encouraged. As an American, it is awkward to read that independence is undesirable for some, and great for others. It is difficult to reconcile the ideal with the political partisanship that forms our current reality.

*

I had a discussion with an acquaintance about the path to peace. He is an idealist, and suggested that just persuading children when they are young and impressionable that peace is best for everyone should eliminate conflict in a generation or two. It's a nice idea, but children already want peace. Children want to have healthy, happy lives, just like most adults do. However, it doesn't take long to see that the world isn't on their side in that regard. I'm sure kids in Beirut and Haifa love peace, but they have no say in the matter at the moment. Unjust experiences will shape their world view in the future. If they realize that not everyone gets a fair chance for a peaceful life, and they are treated unjustly, what then?

I believe that children shouldn't just be taught that peace is good for them: they should get to live it. Without a serious interest in preventing way by solving its underlying causes, peace will remain illusory. To teach peace to kids, we have to live it, and be sure it is available to everyone.

Currently, the U.S. is in 'sole superpower'-mode, and is trying to shape the world to its strategic advantage. This involves military occupations, providing weapons to allies, leading the world in the production of land mines, avoidance of the International Criminal Court, and other non-peaceful strategic goals. These actions deny opportunities for peace to exist in most of the world, resulting in violence which can then be used to justify more violence and state-sponsored or non-state-sponsored terrorism. Teaching kids peace can't make up for the increasing danger we put the world in for short-term gain.

*

Five Years on: An Era of Constant Warfare by Tom Coghlan and Kim Sengupta (from the Independent UK, reposted at truthout.org, 9/04/06) discusses the kind of world kids are seeing now.

Five years ago this week, the Taliban's al-Qa'ida allies made final preparations to launch devastating attacks on America that would precipitate the 'war on terror,' the US led invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.

Far from ending terrorism, George Bush's tactics of using overwhelming military might to fight extremism appear to have rebounded, spawning an epidemic of global terrorism that has claimed an estimated 72,265 lives since 2001, most of them Iraqi civilians.

The rest, some 30,626, according to official US figures, have been killed in a combination of terror attacks and counter-insurgency actions by the US and its allies.

Iraqi casualties (civilian and military) are up 51%.

Today's paper is filled with news of death: violence in Iraq, violence in Afghanistan, violence in Palestine, violence in Dafur (news.bbc.co.uk)... CNN, while assuring us that what's happening in Iraq is NOT a civil war, has articles with titles like Cold-blooded carnage soaring in Iraq (cnn.com), which notes that 1,600+ people were executed in July in the current wave of "sectarian violence" - did we mention it's not a civil war? (With a civil war, they'd be uniforms, I guess, like with sports teams, so you could distinguish between the sides.) More than 100 people were killed on one day alone (August 28th) in Iraq (independent.co.uk, 8/29/06); 68 people were killed and 300 injured in the space of half an hour in Baghdad on September 1st (Baghdad attacks kill 68 in half an hour (news.independent.co.uk, 9/02/06)).

Not to state the obvious, but the tactics currently in use are not working.

No, let me rephrase that: they're not making the world a safer place. Making the world a safer place may not be the goal, however.

There are many people benefitting financially and politically from the current state of affairs. If peace is what we want, we need to make some big changes, including making the current state of affairs unprofitable.

Visit warprofiteers.com and give that some thought.

Cease fire in Lebanon!

Let's see if it holds. But it's a good start. I'd love to take a break from reading about this depressing tragedy for a while. BBC NEWS | In Pictures | In pictures: Lebanon ceasefire (news.bbc.co.uk, 8/14/06).

A short (unauthorized) editorial from a friend about "smart bombs." A while back, I quoted an acquaintance who was mystified that people can ever be upset about being accidentally killed by the military. (!) Seriously. Anyway, a friend replied to him, and I'd like to quote that conversation, because I like it.

">How come whenever a smart bomb kills civilians people makes a fuss about it? Even though it's unintentional.<"

It's worth making a fuss about. There are still several people who believe in "smart bombs". Many of these ignorant folks are voters. Some of them are decision makers.

In WWII, most folks said that the Norden Bomb Sight could put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet up. It got a lot of guys to volunteer for bomber crew who otherwise wouldn't have. They liked the idea of the precise bomb. Heck, who wouldn't? Put a bomb into some tank factory, leave the women and children alone, plenty to like about that idea. Later, we figured out that those bombs were lucky to get within two miles of their targets. Guys who'd signed up to be precision bombers instead burned down cities--a task that our precision bomb sights could actually handle.

I believe that there are situations in which it makes sense to use bombers. But when deciding to use them, don't think of those bombs as smartbombs. Think of them as smart-as-an-aphid bombs. Better than they could be, but still pretty bad. Whenever you hear someone use the phrase "smart bomb", call them on that crap. It's your duty as an engineer.

(My friend knew better than to take on the whole idea of why 'accidental killings' aren't okay, since that was beyond the conceptual acceptance range of his intended audience.)

Nothing brings people together like being attacked by other people. Israel expands war (washingtonpost.com, 8/09/06):

A Tel Aviv University poll showed 93 percent of Israelis believed the campaign in Lebanon was justified, and 91 percent backed the air strikes even if they destroyed Lebanese infrastructure and inflicted suffering on civilians. . . .

At least 1,005 people in Lebanon and 101 Israelis have been killed in four weeks of bloodshed which erupted when Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

A sensible editorial from the PM of Lebanon: End This Tragedy Now: Israel Must Be Made to Respect International Law, by Fouad Siniora (washingtonpost.com, 8/09/06). Yes, there's that concept of international law again.

This is a very worthwhile read.

[I was able to take a vacation, from both work and the news. Many were not so lucky...]

The Washington Post has been updating its collection of photo essays and other media associated with the violence in Lebanon at: Crisis in the Middle East Multimedia.

The biggest side effect: unanticipated popular support for Hezbollah. My extremist political friend had been talking up Israel's attacks on Lebanon as the sort of bold action that so many Americans prize, even when it's directed at the wrong target. While I am relieved not to know too many people like my friend, their are plenty of them in the world, but without his particular political biases. As a result Hezbollah, who is seen as taking decisive action against Israeli aggression, is winning support as the violence against the civilians of Lebanon continues. They are "doing something" about the scenes of horror that people see on the nightly news, and people who think like my friend admire that.

This doesn't sit well with many regional authorities. Arab leaders fear rise of Hezbollah (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/28/06) describes the disruption that such broad support for a militia might have on other countries.

Some Saudi religious figures have gone much further. For them the issue is not so much political as sectarian.

One well-known sheikh, Abdullah bin Jabreen, has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, declaring it illegal for Muslims to join, support or even pray for Hezbollah.

In a time with many unpopular Arab governments, a wildly popular militia in any Arab country could be perceived as a threat.

This points to the fear that many have had about Israel's action against Lebanon destabilizing the region in unpredictable ways.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Blair defends decision on Lebanon (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/29/06):

He added it was 'simply not correct' to say he and US President Bush had not called for an immediate ceasefire because they wanted Israel to win the conflict.

The reason Blair was put in a position to issue this rather odd defense, while traveling to promote high tech business in the U.S., was that he hadn't prepared a really coherent, brief explanation as to why he didn't support a ceasefire. (The article quotes his explanation - see if you can decipher it.)

Please keep track of which war I'm referring to... Meanwhile, in Iraq, the Bush Administration remains frustrated that Americans do not see all the good news about the U.S.-sponsored rebuilding projects. It turns out that it's probably better that we not read about those. Iraq Hospital Touted by Laura Bush Delayed (nytimes.com, 7/28/06) provides some reasons why.

He said that, of nearly 180 medical facilities promised by the U.S., contracts were awarded for 142. Only six have been completed and turned over to the Iraqis and those ''are not even fully complete.''

''This comes as a sharp contrast to the Japanese,'' Ali said. ''They have promised and delivered 13 hospitals around the country, including three cutting-edge cancer centers. The Japanese have been very faithful to us, unfortunately, the Americans aren't like that.''

I think it's important that the interviewee for this story differentiate between the U.S. and the Japanese. U.S. contractors have been saying that working in Iraq is impossible, while still cashing their checks. If the Japanese are delivering on their commitments, it means that it IS possible, but we're not doing it correctly.

Speaking of war crimes... U.N. Says It Protested to Israel for 6 Hours During Attack That Killed 4 Observers in Lebanon (nytimes.com, 7/27/06):

Jane Holl Lute, the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations, said at an emergency meeting of the Security Council that over the six-hour period in which the United Nations' warnings were being conveyed to the Israelis, the observation post at Khiam, in southern Lebanon, continued to come under fire.

The firings persisted even after rescuers reached the hilltop site, she said, and in all it was subjected to 21 strikes, 11 of them aerial bombardments and at least 6 artillery rounds.

She described the observation post as "well known and clearly marked" and added that no Hezbollah activity was reported in the area.

The four dead observers were from China, Finland, Canada and Austria.

An eerie resemblance to certain events that occurred in Vietnam. Sergeant Tells of Plot to Kill Iraqi Detainees (nytimes.com, 7/28/06):

Just before leaving, the soldiers had been given an order to "kill all military-age men" at the site by a colonel and a captain, said Paul Bergrin and Michael Waddington, the lawyers who are disputing Sergeant Lemus' account. Military officials in Baghdad have declined to comment on whether such an order, which would have been a violation of the law of war, might have been given.

What I hope the men do not know is how it turned out in one of the Vietnam versions of this story: there was a lot of fuss, and a lot of media (and the loss of 'hearts and minds' everywhere), and then everyone involved basically got off and went back to their normal lives.

*

I've had some complex discussions with my partner about the concept of the 'law of war.' To him, war is fundamentally immoral, and so it is preposterous to provide rules and laws that make war acceptable to anyone.

I do believe in war laws and war crimes. I believe that, if a home country of mine was attacked, that I should be able to have a right to self defense in similar form to the form of the original attack; that the defense should play by certain rules (no raping, pillaging, theft, slaughter of innocents, despoiling of land, etc.) - that a certain level of lawful order should continue to exist, and that everyone who violates that order should be held accountable in the aftermath along with whoever started the attack.

Unfortunately, this is an ideal: superpowers (worldwide and dominant regional powers) only abide by the rules they wish, take what they want, execute dissenters, and then hold themselves above the law. My partner's point about how preposterous the entire idea of war laws are is valid in the world now, where the victor in a war generally gets to choose against whom laws will and won't be retroactively applied. Winners do not currently pay for war crimes. And we live in a country which holds itself above the law consistently, yet uses the same laws to justify invading others who do not comply, as if the laws only exist when applied against our real or imagined enemies.

For this reason, we really need international legal bodies with the authority to hold all nations into account. My country believed in such bodies when it was small and vulnerable, but now that it's strong, it prefers to dominate by force. When it becomes weaker, as other world powers grow, I imagine there will be another change of position on the issue. But such international authority is currently needed.

Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah (nytimes.com, 7/28/06) suggests that Arab governments which previously criticized Hezbollah's actions against Israel are now being forced to jump onto a bandwagon of support that is being pulled by popular opinion. With images of destruction in Lebanon on television nightly, Hezbollah's fight against a government that is devastating innocent civilians looks more respectable to many.

I'm sure this is a consequence that Israel did not intend.