Saturday, 20 January 2007
Friday, 19 January 2007
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
Win, Escalate, or Surrender in Iraq? And Somalia ? Nancy P. again.
Nancy [ "the most powerful woman in the world" ] Pelosi has now warned the US Administration against "escalating the war". Nancy was only an infant when D-Day happened - did 5-year-old Nancy warn FDR against "escalation" ? Or did her politically-active father ? June 1944 in Normandy was certainly a major escalation, and also vital to end the war. The other way to end any war is of course to surrender, give in, run away.
If you will the end, you have to will the means to that end. And the means you use to win are not completely under your control; you have to counter the methods used against you. The level, local deployment, nature, equipment, training and tactics of your forces have to respond to the actual threat facing you - if you really want to win. And similarly the length or location of a campaign is outside your control. You have to defend yourself when and where attacked.
But is winning legitimate ? Or is it even vital ?
That depends. There are 4 types of conflict.
First, where 2 equally legitimate parties are in dispute, each with an equal right to exist, as with 2 neighbors, or capital and labor in a company, or 2 spouses. The terms of the dispute, the height of a boundary fence, the pay rate, the holiday plans next year, etc, are about the details of engagement, not about the existence of the other. The continuance of their working relationship is another good to be preserved, during and after the time of dispute. Here it is important that a "win-win" outcome is achieved, which preserves the existence and respect of both parties. Whether opponents or partners or allies at any given time, they are not enemies. Either to one another, or to the wider community.
Secondly, where both parties are equally illegitimate, as with a "turf-war" between 2 drug-gangs or bomb-gangs. The duty of the police and state in that context is to prevail over both gangs, and when possible, to eliminate both. Here, only a "lose-lose" outcome [for the 2 sets of gangsters] is desirable. Both are not only mutual enemies, but also "enemies of the people".
Thirdly, where one party is itself illegitimate, and the other is legitimate. Here, it is not just the right but the duty of the legitimate party to prevail, such as the State and police against a drug-gang or bomb-gang. Here, only a "win-lose" outcome is acceptable.
Fourthly, where a formerly legitimate party, such as a State, or a political or ethnic or religious group, embarks on a campaign of aggression and becomes, for that specific reason alone, itself illegitimate. As with the Nazi invasion of Poland in Sept, 1939, or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Dec, 1941. Here, the only desirable outcome again is a "win-lose" outcome, as in 3 above, where the innocent party prevails. As happened in 1945. Such an aggressor is no mere opponent, but an enemy, and to be defeated. Not tolerated. Not appeased. Not ignored.
If those are the principles, what are the facts in Iraq ?
In Iraq today, there is on one hand, the democratically-elected Government, and against not only it, but also attacking the peoples of that multi-ethnic land, is a collection of disparate armed gangs, [a] some imported Jihadi elements like Zarqawi from Jordan, [b] other native Islamicist Jihadis, [c] some Baath elements, [d] some ex-military or ex-security elements, [e] some Sunni and [f] other Shia elements, with Iranian aid coming to the latter, along with [g] some "ordinary" criminal gangs.
None of these gangs have any right to exist, much less carry on any armed attacks, be they against the democratic Iraqi state, or against civilians, including against Mosques.
Secondly, the Coalition Forces are in Iraq for 3 purposes: [a] to train the Iraq Government Forces to defend their own people from such multi-sourced aggression, and [b] to support those Forces logistically, and [c] to temporarily reinforce the Iraqi Forces in operations against the aggressors - until they have reached and sustained a critical level of capability which enables them to prevail against the threat. Not against "freedom-fighters". Not against "insurgents". But against the enemies of freedom, democracy, and decency.
Thirdly, the threat is concentrated. The 3 Kurdish Provinces in the North are mostly peaceful. The capital, Baghdad, and some Sunni Arab Provinces, like Anbar, are the main threat-area. It therefore makes sense to concentrate Government and Coalition operations, and whatever resources or re-inforcements are needed, on those sectors. Which is what the White House plans.
Fourthly, the more you delay, or limit, a response, the worse the problem becomes. Decisive and effective action, and in good time, is ultimately the easiest course.
Which part of this outline analysis does Nancy not get ? Or reject ? And is it for reasons of ideology, or factual evidence ? Or does Nancy make a "moral equivalence" between the ruthless aggressor and the innocent victims, the civilians and democratic State targeted by the suicide-bombers ?
An Irish woman from Dublin, Margaret Fitzpatrick, spent her adult life in Baghdad, involved in a NGO, married a local, and was kidnapped and beheaded. One of many, mostly Iraqis, so targeted. Does Nancy want decency and democracy to prevail over thoseJihadi beheaders ? Does she stand with the decent, heart-broken Hassan [Arab Sunni] family that Margaret married into, and with the courageous colleagues and friends of Margaret who demonstrated to demand her release ? Or does Nancy turn her back, and walk away ? Screams from Baghdad dont reach San Francisco. Nor will the blood of beheaded Iraqi women pollute the Bay. Is that now to be the new American way ? Or will Nancy, along with the Marines and Army, also bring back the millions of decent Iraqis who voted for democracy ? Remember the Vietnamese "boat-people", Nancy ?
Right now, the Jihadi aggression against Somalia has been routed - by a 4-sided alliance. Kenya seals its border, the Somalian Interim Government Forces, with Ethiopian re-inforcements, pushes the Jihadi enemy southwards, away from the capital, Mogadishu, towards the sealed Kenyan border, while the US Navy deploys off the coast, sealing that escape or supply route, while carrier-based air power supports the Interim Somali Government. And it works - as well as eliminating Jihadi elements responsible for the Embassy bombings. And it is an "escalation". Any problem with that, Nancy ?
The Somalis, or Iraqis, dont demand a new life in some Californian heaven, but only an end to Jihadi hell on their doorstep. For a nation of over 300m to deploy 150,000 personnel is 1 deployed for every 2,000 US population. And the death-rate equals 1 for every 100,000. Is either burden unsustainable ?
My small state, Ireland, lost far more, pro-rata, on UN duty in Lebanon, but nobody ever complained.
Is your problem, Nancy, [a] that you believe in nothing, or [b] that you will pay no price for it, or [c] that your concern stops at the 8th Congressional District boundary, or [d] that you lack the courage to lead, or [e] even the insight, openness, or courage to re-think your old slogans ?
Being the self-proclaimed "most powerful woman in the world" is a tool, an opportunity, not an end in itself. The rest of the world needs power, US power, and your new-found power, to re-inforce the good. Not run the world, not conquer it, not ignore it, just support the forces of decency and humanity, as the US did in 1917 in France, in 1941, in 1950 in Korea.
And remember that the US is the first nation in human history to be formed from emigrants from every people on earth, and rightly still seen as a beacon of hope. Your Congress has Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, 10 not stated, 1 not affiliated members - a microcosm of the world, and a reflection of its truly open, democratic and multi-ethnic character, and of its proud boast as being the "land of the free". Iraq also deserves the freedom to enjoy its own "rainbow", not to be abandoned to Jihadi or Baath tyranny.
The true American spirit was shown in 1936 when 14,000 volunteers went to Spain to resist Hitler's proxy force, Franco's fascist rebels, and 1,000 were Jewish, vastly above their share of the US population. There was not enough democratic "escalation" in 1936 to resist fasicst aggression, and so a huge price was paid later to defeat that same ruthless enemy. Dont walk blindfoled and backwards into the future, Nancy. The Jihadi beheaders are the writing on your wall.
If you will the end, you have to will the means to that end. And the means you use to win are not completely under your control; you have to counter the methods used against you. The level, local deployment, nature, equipment, training and tactics of your forces have to respond to the actual threat facing you - if you really want to win. And similarly the length or location of a campaign is outside your control. You have to defend yourself when and where attacked.
But is winning legitimate ? Or is it even vital ?
That depends. There are 4 types of conflict.
First, where 2 equally legitimate parties are in dispute, each with an equal right to exist, as with 2 neighbors, or capital and labor in a company, or 2 spouses. The terms of the dispute, the height of a boundary fence, the pay rate, the holiday plans next year, etc, are about the details of engagement, not about the existence of the other. The continuance of their working relationship is another good to be preserved, during and after the time of dispute. Here it is important that a "win-win" outcome is achieved, which preserves the existence and respect of both parties. Whether opponents or partners or allies at any given time, they are not enemies. Either to one another, or to the wider community.
Secondly, where both parties are equally illegitimate, as with a "turf-war" between 2 drug-gangs or bomb-gangs. The duty of the police and state in that context is to prevail over both gangs, and when possible, to eliminate both. Here, only a "lose-lose" outcome [for the 2 sets of gangsters] is desirable. Both are not only mutual enemies, but also "enemies of the people".
Thirdly, where one party is itself illegitimate, and the other is legitimate. Here, it is not just the right but the duty of the legitimate party to prevail, such as the State and police against a drug-gang or bomb-gang. Here, only a "win-lose" outcome is acceptable.
Fourthly, where a formerly legitimate party, such as a State, or a political or ethnic or religious group, embarks on a campaign of aggression and becomes, for that specific reason alone, itself illegitimate. As with the Nazi invasion of Poland in Sept, 1939, or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Dec, 1941. Here, the only desirable outcome again is a "win-lose" outcome, as in 3 above, where the innocent party prevails. As happened in 1945. Such an aggressor is no mere opponent, but an enemy, and to be defeated. Not tolerated. Not appeased. Not ignored.
If those are the principles, what are the facts in Iraq ?
In Iraq today, there is on one hand, the democratically-elected Government, and against not only it, but also attacking the peoples of that multi-ethnic land, is a collection of disparate armed gangs, [a] some imported Jihadi elements like Zarqawi from Jordan, [b] other native Islamicist Jihadis, [c] some Baath elements, [d] some ex-military or ex-security elements, [e] some Sunni and [f] other Shia elements, with Iranian aid coming to the latter, along with [g] some "ordinary" criminal gangs.
None of these gangs have any right to exist, much less carry on any armed attacks, be they against the democratic Iraqi state, or against civilians, including against Mosques.
Secondly, the Coalition Forces are in Iraq for 3 purposes: [a] to train the Iraq Government Forces to defend their own people from such multi-sourced aggression, and [b] to support those Forces logistically, and [c] to temporarily reinforce the Iraqi Forces in operations against the aggressors - until they have reached and sustained a critical level of capability which enables them to prevail against the threat. Not against "freedom-fighters". Not against "insurgents". But against the enemies of freedom, democracy, and decency.
Thirdly, the threat is concentrated. The 3 Kurdish Provinces in the North are mostly peaceful. The capital, Baghdad, and some Sunni Arab Provinces, like Anbar, are the main threat-area. It therefore makes sense to concentrate Government and Coalition operations, and whatever resources or re-inforcements are needed, on those sectors. Which is what the White House plans.
Fourthly, the more you delay, or limit, a response, the worse the problem becomes. Decisive and effective action, and in good time, is ultimately the easiest course.
Which part of this outline analysis does Nancy not get ? Or reject ? And is it for reasons of ideology, or factual evidence ? Or does Nancy make a "moral equivalence" between the ruthless aggressor and the innocent victims, the civilians and democratic State targeted by the suicide-bombers ?
An Irish woman from Dublin, Margaret Fitzpatrick, spent her adult life in Baghdad, involved in a NGO, married a local, and was kidnapped and beheaded. One of many, mostly Iraqis, so targeted. Does Nancy want decency and democracy to prevail over thoseJihadi beheaders ? Does she stand with the decent, heart-broken Hassan [Arab Sunni] family that Margaret married into, and with the courageous colleagues and friends of Margaret who demonstrated to demand her release ? Or does Nancy turn her back, and walk away ? Screams from Baghdad dont reach San Francisco. Nor will the blood of beheaded Iraqi women pollute the Bay. Is that now to be the new American way ? Or will Nancy, along with the Marines and Army, also bring back the millions of decent Iraqis who voted for democracy ? Remember the Vietnamese "boat-people", Nancy ?
Right now, the Jihadi aggression against Somalia has been routed - by a 4-sided alliance. Kenya seals its border, the Somalian Interim Government Forces, with Ethiopian re-inforcements, pushes the Jihadi enemy southwards, away from the capital, Mogadishu, towards the sealed Kenyan border, while the US Navy deploys off the coast, sealing that escape or supply route, while carrier-based air power supports the Interim Somali Government. And it works - as well as eliminating Jihadi elements responsible for the Embassy bombings. And it is an "escalation". Any problem with that, Nancy ?
The Somalis, or Iraqis, dont demand a new life in some Californian heaven, but only an end to Jihadi hell on their doorstep. For a nation of over 300m to deploy 150,000 personnel is 1 deployed for every 2,000 US population. And the death-rate equals 1 for every 100,000. Is either burden unsustainable ?
My small state, Ireland, lost far more, pro-rata, on UN duty in Lebanon, but nobody ever complained.
Is your problem, Nancy, [a] that you believe in nothing, or [b] that you will pay no price for it, or [c] that your concern stops at the 8th Congressional District boundary, or [d] that you lack the courage to lead, or [e] even the insight, openness, or courage to re-think your old slogans ?
Being the self-proclaimed "most powerful woman in the world" is a tool, an opportunity, not an end in itself. The rest of the world needs power, US power, and your new-found power, to re-inforce the good. Not run the world, not conquer it, not ignore it, just support the forces of decency and humanity, as the US did in 1917 in France, in 1941, in 1950 in Korea.
And remember that the US is the first nation in human history to be formed from emigrants from every people on earth, and rightly still seen as a beacon of hope. Your Congress has Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, 10 not stated, 1 not affiliated members - a microcosm of the world, and a reflection of its truly open, democratic and multi-ethnic character, and of its proud boast as being the "land of the free". Iraq also deserves the freedom to enjoy its own "rainbow", not to be abandoned to Jihadi or Baath tyranny.
The true American spirit was shown in 1936 when 14,000 volunteers went to Spain to resist Hitler's proxy force, Franco's fascist rebels, and 1,000 were Jewish, vastly above their share of the US population. There was not enough democratic "escalation" in 1936 to resist fasicst aggression, and so a huge price was paid later to defeat that same ruthless enemy. Dont walk blindfoled and backwards into the future, Nancy. The Jihadi beheaders are the writing on your wall.
Saturday, 6 January 2007
Pelosi , Iraq, Fantasy and "Neo-Dems".
Nancy Pelosi, representing the San Francisco [Califonia 8th District] in the US House of Representatives, and new Speaker of the House, repeats the mantra that Iraq needs " regional diplomacy". And "military re-deployment". And the Baker Report is similarly uncritical. Great, provided several other things could be taken for granted, or at least readily commanded. But can they ? And are "regional diplomacy" and "military re-deployment" any more than code for slow retreat, but under a thick smoke-screen ?
Is each player - be it outside or within Iraq - [a] playing by the same rules, [b] playing by any rules, or [c] committed to the same objectives, or [d] able to deliver ? Can Nancy be serious ?
And is Iraq even worth preserving ? And at what cost ? And can it really be preserved at any cost ? And does Iran not want continuing chaos in Iraq, with the US bogged down, and unable to tackle the emerging Iranian nuclear threat ?
To take the question of whether Iraq is worth preserving, lets remember Iraq is purely an invention of British Colonial Administrators after World War I. Nothing more. Three separate Provinces of the pre-1917 Turkish Ottoman Empire were cobbled together as a centralized, UK-run entity, with no unity or shared history or identity. And they never developed any coherence since then. Two Provinces [Mosul in the North, and Baghdad in the Center] were predominantly Sunni Muslim, but ethnically and culturally divided, with either Kurdish or Arab influence predominant, while the two Arab Provinces [Baghad, and Basra in the South] were religiously divided, with Basra Province predominantly Shia Muslim. And the Sunni minority dominance over the Shia majority under the Ottoman regime still continued - until Saddam was toppled.
The post-Ottoman Iraqi state saw ongoing Kurdish unrest, and no development of either democracy or "civil society". The 2003 liberation from the Saddam tyranny by the Coalition Forces was unlike the 1945 situation in Germany, which was ethnically and culturally united, and had some experience of both democracy, and "civil society", on which to construct a post-war constitutional democracy.
Further, there is no model of a successful Arab democracy, and the whole dynamic of "freedom" in Arab rhetoric and politics has been, and remains, mainly negative, "freedom from" [in Isaiah Berlin's phrase], about xenophobia, and anti-Western movements, not "freedom for" individuals and parties and speech and civil society. The Islamic cultural and educational heritage is also not exactly conducive to such values. Nor is the predominant Islamic attitude to women.
Bearing in mind that Western Democracy was a centuries-long and uneven growth, and with deep foundations in the Hebraic and Greek Civilizations, the very idea of "instant democracy" is naive in the extreme. That is not to suggest that some peoples are incapable of self-rule, but that it must be a quite slow, and organic process. The gradual evolution of Morocco, and the emergence of recent reforms there, suggests that "revolutionary democratization" is neither necessary, nor possible.
What is most worrying about Pelosi-ism is that it reverts [but in a covert and incoherent manner] to a sick era in US Foreign Policy. There have been, and are, many streams in US academic/diplomatic thinking and in popular/media sentiment, regarding its role in the world.
There is [a] the Machiavellian Ruthless, Cynical Realism embodied by Kissinger and Nixon, and now re-emerging as Bakerism. There is [b] Isolationalism, still alive and well, and beating in some Democratic as well as conservative breasts. There are also elements of [c] Neutralism, [d] Pacifism, [e] hard-left "anti-Imperialism", [f] "multi-culturalist" relativism, [g] Multi-lateralist Proceduralism, as well as [h] Principled Internationalist Interventionism. That robust but idealistic Trend h, the "liberal hawks", is really the Democrats inheritance, that of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman and JFK, with pre-Reagan Republicans historically being tarnished with a and b.
The successful confrontation with the Kremlin under Reagan saw a former Democrat, and Trade Union President [ like myself] turning the Republicans into the "neo-dems". A political reverse take-over. The mis-described "neo-cons" are really "neo-dems", like Reagan himself, both in origin and outlook, and like those FDNY firefighters who instinctively abandoned their historic blue-collar Democrat allegiance when they [quite rightly] perceived that party as radically abandoning them, their values, and their security. Bush and Rumsfeld may have been criminally incompetent in implementing the neo-dem strategy in Iraq, but he [unlike James Baker, or Colin Powell] is a true radical, not a con or neo-con. As was Reagan.
That same kind of historic shift saw Thatcher in the UK gain the support of the skilled craftsmen, the electricians, plumbers, etc, when British Labor was captured by their hard-left, by "Tony" Benn [originally Lord Anthony Wedgwood-Benn !! ], George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn 19th Century Class-Warrior types. Such elements in eg France or Italy are in the Communist Party, or in Trotskyite fringes. It took a long battle, by Neil Kinnock, John Smith and finally Tony Blair, to recapture their Party, and re-position it firmly in the center.
Ironically, the ascendant "left" Dems like Nancy Pelosi, or Cindy Sheehan, or John Kerry or Howard Dean, who ignore that British lesson, are a confused mixture of all 7 [a to g] reactionary trends listed above, with their de-selection of Senator Joe Lieberman indicating how far they have shifted from their own party heritage. Scoop Jackson, like Wilson, FDR, Truman or JFK, would not belong either.
And the "liberal social agenda" of the Left Dems confined their appeal and base to the Coastal Elite. Just as the broad appeal of Tony Blair's New Labor confined his Tory opponents to the English SE. The November 2006 elections saw many emerge like Senator Jim Webb [decorated ex-USMC Capt and Vietnam veteran ] in Virginia - that was the real significant story, the emerging re-capture of the Dems by their own true historic spirit. The sad spectacle of the first female House Speaker being utterly blind to the coming burial of Howard Dean by Jim Webb, suggests that the return of the Dems to their own roots may be slow, if not abortive, but equally, the battle for the soul of the Republcians may be long and inconclusive. But perhaps the next President, Senator Hilary McCain, will prove to be another neo-dem, but hopefully a less incompetent one. And a less fiscally flawed one. The world beyond the Beltway, not to mention beyond Foggy Bottom, depends on the outcome.
And the last people to grasp the deep shifting sands in the US will be, as in UK, the trendy Media/Cultural/Academic Elite who, in each country, nearly destroyed the historic party of social reform, for the sake of their fashionable, rigid, superficial ideology. But US Dems may not produce a Tony Blair in time to regain their place in the sun. Remember that old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times". And rember the systematic betrayal of democratic values by the inter-war appeasers of the European "Intelligentia" who fawned on Stalin, or ignored Hitler, until it was too late. You are either with the Firefighter, or the Arsonist, with the Drug Squad, or the Drug Gang, the Bomb Squad, or the Suicide-bomber. And life, politically as well as personally, often allows us only the choice of the lesser of two evils. We have been warned.
Is each player - be it outside or within Iraq - [a] playing by the same rules, [b] playing by any rules, or [c] committed to the same objectives, or [d] able to deliver ? Can Nancy be serious ?
And is Iraq even worth preserving ? And at what cost ? And can it really be preserved at any cost ? And does Iran not want continuing chaos in Iraq, with the US bogged down, and unable to tackle the emerging Iranian nuclear threat ?
To take the question of whether Iraq is worth preserving, lets remember Iraq is purely an invention of British Colonial Administrators after World War I. Nothing more. Three separate Provinces of the pre-1917 Turkish Ottoman Empire were cobbled together as a centralized, UK-run entity, with no unity or shared history or identity. And they never developed any coherence since then. Two Provinces [Mosul in the North, and Baghdad in the Center] were predominantly Sunni Muslim, but ethnically and culturally divided, with either Kurdish or Arab influence predominant, while the two Arab Provinces [Baghad, and Basra in the South] were religiously divided, with Basra Province predominantly Shia Muslim. And the Sunni minority dominance over the Shia majority under the Ottoman regime still continued - until Saddam was toppled.
The post-Ottoman Iraqi state saw ongoing Kurdish unrest, and no development of either democracy or "civil society". The 2003 liberation from the Saddam tyranny by the Coalition Forces was unlike the 1945 situation in Germany, which was ethnically and culturally united, and had some experience of both democracy, and "civil society", on which to construct a post-war constitutional democracy.
Further, there is no model of a successful Arab democracy, and the whole dynamic of "freedom" in Arab rhetoric and politics has been, and remains, mainly negative, "freedom from" [in Isaiah Berlin's phrase], about xenophobia, and anti-Western movements, not "freedom for" individuals and parties and speech and civil society. The Islamic cultural and educational heritage is also not exactly conducive to such values. Nor is the predominant Islamic attitude to women.
Bearing in mind that Western Democracy was a centuries-long and uneven growth, and with deep foundations in the Hebraic and Greek Civilizations, the very idea of "instant democracy" is naive in the extreme. That is not to suggest that some peoples are incapable of self-rule, but that it must be a quite slow, and organic process. The gradual evolution of Morocco, and the emergence of recent reforms there, suggests that "revolutionary democratization" is neither necessary, nor possible.
What is most worrying about Pelosi-ism is that it reverts [but in a covert and incoherent manner] to a sick era in US Foreign Policy. There have been, and are, many streams in US academic/diplomatic thinking and in popular/media sentiment, regarding its role in the world.
There is [a] the Machiavellian Ruthless, Cynical Realism embodied by Kissinger and Nixon, and now re-emerging as Bakerism. There is [b] Isolationalism, still alive and well, and beating in some Democratic as well as conservative breasts. There are also elements of [c] Neutralism, [d] Pacifism, [e] hard-left "anti-Imperialism", [f] "multi-culturalist" relativism, [g] Multi-lateralist Proceduralism, as well as [h] Principled Internationalist Interventionism. That robust but idealistic Trend h, the "liberal hawks", is really the Democrats inheritance, that of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman and JFK, with pre-Reagan Republicans historically being tarnished with a and b.
The successful confrontation with the Kremlin under Reagan saw a former Democrat, and Trade Union President [ like myself] turning the Republicans into the "neo-dems". A political reverse take-over. The mis-described "neo-cons" are really "neo-dems", like Reagan himself, both in origin and outlook, and like those FDNY firefighters who instinctively abandoned their historic blue-collar Democrat allegiance when they [quite rightly] perceived that party as radically abandoning them, their values, and their security. Bush and Rumsfeld may have been criminally incompetent in implementing the neo-dem strategy in Iraq, but he [unlike James Baker, or Colin Powell] is a true radical, not a con or neo-con. As was Reagan.
That same kind of historic shift saw Thatcher in the UK gain the support of the skilled craftsmen, the electricians, plumbers, etc, when British Labor was captured by their hard-left, by "Tony" Benn [originally Lord Anthony Wedgwood-Benn !! ], George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn 19th Century Class-Warrior types. Such elements in eg France or Italy are in the Communist Party, or in Trotskyite fringes. It took a long battle, by Neil Kinnock, John Smith and finally Tony Blair, to recapture their Party, and re-position it firmly in the center.
Ironically, the ascendant "left" Dems like Nancy Pelosi, or Cindy Sheehan, or John Kerry or Howard Dean, who ignore that British lesson, are a confused mixture of all 7 [a to g] reactionary trends listed above, with their de-selection of Senator Joe Lieberman indicating how far they have shifted from their own party heritage. Scoop Jackson, like Wilson, FDR, Truman or JFK, would not belong either.
And the "liberal social agenda" of the Left Dems confined their appeal and base to the Coastal Elite. Just as the broad appeal of Tony Blair's New Labor confined his Tory opponents to the English SE. The November 2006 elections saw many emerge like Senator Jim Webb [decorated ex-USMC Capt and Vietnam veteran ] in Virginia - that was the real significant story, the emerging re-capture of the Dems by their own true historic spirit. The sad spectacle of the first female House Speaker being utterly blind to the coming burial of Howard Dean by Jim Webb, suggests that the return of the Dems to their own roots may be slow, if not abortive, but equally, the battle for the soul of the Republcians may be long and inconclusive. But perhaps the next President, Senator Hilary McCain, will prove to be another neo-dem, but hopefully a less incompetent one. And a less fiscally flawed one. The world beyond the Beltway, not to mention beyond Foggy Bottom, depends on the outcome.
And the last people to grasp the deep shifting sands in the US will be, as in UK, the trendy Media/Cultural/Academic Elite who, in each country, nearly destroyed the historic party of social reform, for the sake of their fashionable, rigid, superficial ideology. But US Dems may not produce a Tony Blair in time to regain their place in the sun. Remember that old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times". And rember the systematic betrayal of democratic values by the inter-war appeasers of the European "Intelligentia" who fawned on Stalin, or ignored Hitler, until it was too late. You are either with the Firefighter, or the Arsonist, with the Drug Squad, or the Drug Gang, the Bomb Squad, or the Suicide-bomber. And life, politically as well as personally, often allows us only the choice of the lesser of two evils. We have been warned.
Friday, 5 January 2007
Monday, 1 January 2007
The Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam, Executed
A full camera-phone video of the execution by the democratic Iraqi State, of the former Iraqi dictator and serial mass murderer, Saddam, has now been leaked and posted on the net, on liveleak.com.
It has, from Dec 30, 2006, when it was posted, up to Jan 1, 2001, already attracted over 2.5m viewings.
It does not stop with the noose being placed around his neck, as many TV broadcasts did.
It is at:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=863ce7d4a3
It has, from Dec 30, 2006, when it was posted, up to Jan 1, 2001, already attracted over 2.5m viewings.
It does not stop with the noose being placed around his neck, as many TV broadcasts did.
It is at:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=863ce7d4a3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
