1. A Federal court just upheld the practice of ‘Rendition’ where the CIA comes in,  picks up a suspect and secretly transports him to a foreign prison for ‘interrogation’.   (New York Times)
2. Afghan President Karzai will restrict US personnel from participating in the ongoing corruption investigation against his government and his family. (Washington Post)
3. Last, but not least: A poll reports that ‘Most’ Americans oppose the [so called] Ground Zero Mosque (New York Times)

I’d like to know how any of these events constitute ‘Breaking’ News.

• The first item deserves a serious investigation, explanation and commentary.
• The second is not even surprising and must have been in the works for a while.
• Finally, we have a nice megaphone for the hate mongers.  In the last day or two, The New York Times previously sent ‘breaking’ news relaying poll results showing that New Yorkers oppose the [Muslim Community Center Project in Lower Manhattan ] Ground Zero Mosque.  Now it’s all Americans.   Since when does a single, uncorroborated, unnamed poll have any broad significance?

How is this ‘Breaking’ News?  Next thing you know, Reality Show highlights will qualify as ‘Breaking News’.   Already, the courts and congress make decisions about our freedoms and entitlements without giving advance notice and without any serious explication.  It’s just ‘Breaking News’.   Pretty soon the ‘Breaking’ News will be the only ‘News’ we get.

In this light, I have changed the title and resubmitted, as requested.  I’m not a  ‘Holocaust Denier’.  I just want to live in the present.  When I wrote the title, I was angry.   The piece was probably improved by removing a secondary and incomplete thread.  That particular title wasn’t necessary to it’s meaning.  The details of the story sounded like some HOLOCAUST  stories I have heard, but  it wasn’t necessary to mention it.  The story stands alone.

However, I want to say that it seems to me this word has become more sacred than words for ‘God’.  It is held with the same reverence that  ‘Allah’, the sacred name of god is respected by Muslims.   This is perverse.  Why would you base your identity on an act of the devil?     There’s a sense that ‘Holocaust’  is patented, copyrighted and owned.  I almost said it’s owned by a ‘people’, but in fact it is owned by a political entity.  This political entity uses it’s proprietary ownership of the term to manufacture separation and xenophobia, and to incite people to hatred and fear.  They use  it to cover for their own atrocities.

To say that something similarly awful is happening now is not to deny THE HOLOCAUST, but to to use a perfectly good English word that describes something that indeed happened before in a particularly horrific context, and for which we in the West bear some responsibility.   But holocausts are ongoing in other venues and should be addressed now so as to end further suffering.   In Africa, there have been numerous instances of rape and pillage by armies, often supported and armed by first world powers for their own profit, or in keeping with their prejudices.  The US has supported massacres in Indonesia, in Central America, and instigated civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prior to invading those countries.

In fact, Palestine is not the most egregious example of ongoing holocausts towards an indigenous population or the members of a competing political entity, merely the most ironic.  The thing about Palestine is that the ‘holocaust’ there is being perpetrated by the very people who derive their identity from THE HOLOCAUST.   We all need to start living in the present and using  language without prejudice.  It would be a lot easier to evaluate our circumstances if we were to follow that path.

I do think the recent US interventions have unfortunately, and most likely inadvertently, tightened the deadlock.   I don’t think our government understands just how resistant Iraqi society is to having us pick their leader.  They also don’t appear to understand how determined their chosen ones are to govern alone at the top.   Where they had hoped to control whichever coalition ascended to power, they have instead created a dead heat between two dead horses, neither of whom can command a majority of the forces at play.  This is a perverse distortion of the parliamentary system, and has resulted in a deadlock as we perceive it.

Ultimately, the only party that can hold power in Iraq without US intervention is probably a broad Shia Coalition with the Kurds supporting them.  If Al Maliki were to let go, that is who would come into power.   I say this because they represent the majority support of the people, and have the resources to consolidate their power.    This  is obvious.  The only reason they didn’t win the election is because their coalition was divided over whether Al Maliki should lead.  The problem is that many of the MPs themselves live in the West and depend on US support.  If they break from Al Maliki, they will lose that support.  But if the Shia can’t come together, then the deadlock will continue.

Some of you may be concerned about the possibility that the ascension to power of a Shia coalition will result in a massacre of Sunnis.  On this issue, I will tell you what I think, but I will admit that my opinion is not on rock the same rock solid foundation as the previous portion of the article.  However, I would not state my opinion if it didn’t have some basis in my research, and if I did not strongly endorse it.  That given, I think that a real change of government in Iraq might indeed be messy.   Iraq is desperately in need of the restoration of order.  Nothing else can be achieved without a measure of order and security.   At the same time, I do not believe there will be pogroms against the Sunnis, nor that they will be entirely barred from participation in the government in the advent of the ascendancy of the broad Shia Coalition I mention above to power.

I hold this opinion for several reasons.  The Sadrists are the best integrated and best grounded force in the Shia Coalition that has seceded from al Maliki’s Coalition, and they are the most determined that he not become Prime Minister.   The Sadrists are a nationalist, and a populist party.  Several years ago, they attempted to partner with The Muslim Scholars, a significant Sunni force at the time, in an effort to end the internal violence and form a united front against the occupiers.    Muqtada al Sadr has met with Bashar al Assad, President of Syria, and with Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of  Turkey as well as with members of the Iranian Government.  He, or his representative have met with Masoud Barzani, the Kurdish President, and with Iyad Allawi.   Al Maliki, whose base, al Dawa,  is the party created by Muqtada’s Uncle to oppose Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.  They reject him because he has betrayed them, and in their eyes, he has betrayed the people of Iraq.

Unlike the SCIRI, who were our first Shia proxies in Iraq, the Sadrists are not heavily beholden to Iran.   It is true that Muqtada has spent the last couple of years in Iran, but he is working on the necessary studies to become an Ayatollah.  He is now a Mujtahid and you might say that he is doing the hard work to obtain the basic requirements of access to power within the Shia heriarchy.   He is preparing himself to hold equal power to Iraq’s advisors in Iran, as Ayatollah Sistani does now.   At the same time, Muqtada does not want to be Prime Minister.  He stands behind his movement and would function as an advisor and adjunct to whatever politicians actually hold power.

The Sadrist’s number one goal has consistently been to remove the occupiers.  Following that, they support national unity.  As I mentioned in my previous article, they have been advised by  Hezbollah, who are currently integrating with the government of Lebanon through an organic, and democratic process.   Their choice for Prime Minister was identified through a referendum they held among their supporters.   He is not a Sadrist himself, but rather a Shia who, like most members of the Parliament, has spent many years in the West.   The Sadrists are already supporting hospitals, public works and social services for the poor. If these initiatives were to come under the auspices of the government, this would be a huge achievement.

I have just finished reading Joe Sacco’s book, “Footnotes in Gaza“.   Sacco was in Gaza researching this book before and during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, and at the time that Rachel Corrie was run over by an IDF Bulldozer as she attempted to stop it from destroying someone’s home.    His topic, however, was a massacre of between 50 and 100+ men in Rafah, depending on whose numbers you like, that occurred on November 12, 1956.    The research for the book involved finding and interviewing older people who actually participated in, or witnessed the event.

As Joe and his Palestinian helpers investigate this tragedy from the past, they inhabit a world of continuous threat and violence.  There are daily killings by the IDF, 10 one day, 3 another.  Sometimes there is a political connection, often there isn’t.    House demolitions are ongoing.   People’s homes are regularly shot up and pockmarked with bullet holes.  It isn’t safe to walk down the street at night, as a tank might be waiting in the dark to shoot at you.  It isn’t safe to stand on a roof facing the Egyptian border, as there is an Israeli control tower from which suspect individuals are taken out by sharp shooters.   Helicopters and F16s fly overhead on a daily basis.  In this environment, Sacco and his Palestinian Abed, interview elderly witnesses about their experiences during a day of terror long ago.

But getting to the story of what occurred in 1956.   Sacco and Abed track the information from different witnesses carefully. People’s memories are fallible, but they develop a central core of reliable information, heard from numerous sources.   At this time, Gaza was still controlled by Egypt.  Israel,along with France and Great Britain, had attacked Egypt, by the US had forced them to halt their attack.     At the time, Gaza was still under the control of Egypt, but Israel very much wanted to occupy it.   On the 11th of November,  Heavily Armed Israeli forces came through looking for Palestinian and Egyptian soldiers.   Not armed well enough to defend themselves, many of these men took off their uniforms and  disappeared into the civilian population.

The next morning, it seems that a jeep with a loudspeaker came down the main street early in the morning, loudly demanding that all of the men between 16 and 60 go to the school.  If they didn’t go to the school, they would be found and killed.   As the men went out into the street,they were herded by IDF soldiers, yelling at them,and in some cases, shooting at them.   Some men were forced to travel down the road in small groups, with their hands against a wall.   Each group was told to stop at some point, and the men were gunned down in the street,while facing the wall.   The surrounding crowd was desperate and moved more quickly as this happened, stumbling over the bodies of their friends and neighbors.  When they eventually came to the school, they found that  barbed wire strung across the entrance and a trench had been dug in front of the door.   As the attempted to jump through the door, they were beaten with clubs and metal rods.

Inside the school, the men were crowded together and forced to kneel with their heads down while soldiers fired automatic weapons over their heads.   Meanwhile, house to house searches were going on, and any man found was taken out and shot dead.  In the school, many of the men were wounded, and they weren’t given any food or water, or allowed to use a bathroom.  This went on for hours.   Finally, at some point in the afternoon, some  VIPs with British, and maybe French, accents arrived.  A seemingly horrified British officer waved his hand and yelled at the soldiers to stop firing.    He told the men to lift their heads.   Several men reported that, at that point, they saw a dove on the man’s shoulder, or white doves in the air.   They said they thought the doves were angels who brought this man to save them.

Throughout the rest of the day, the men were individually interrogated, and some were taken away.    Initially there was an effort to get men to declare that they were soldiers, and to report other men as soldiers.   Eventually, men were just randomly selected and sent to another room.  Many of the participants thought they were all killed, but apparently most were later taken to a prison in Northern Israel.  The IDF had the bodies from earlier in the day picked up from the streets and dumped in a nearby field.   People later went to find their missing loved ones and bury them.   More than a hundred bodies were heaped here and there in an empty cactus field outside of town.  Around 200 more men had been taken away to an Israeli prison.

Technically, the general content of this book isn’t new to me.  I’ve been reading about atrocities committed in Palestine for years.  As I read on, I was safe in my little bubble of outrage and compassion  until I got to the part where the European ‘Officials’ arrived, and expressed some discomfort with the proceedings.  When I got to the part where  the men were finally allowed to lift their heads, and they thought they saw angels in the vicinity of their interlocutors, that’s when I started to cry.

Sacco includes the reports and discussions of the event within Israel, and with the UN in appendices.  Dag Hammerskjold was apparently unhappy with the reports he received on the event, but he didn’t act forcibly.   Most of the pressure was on Israel, and as far as I can see, no one questioned their European allies,who should have been out of the picture long before this event occurred.   The war had ended months earlier.  Despite some internal dissension, Israel ultimately claimed that, when the Palestinians thought the IDF had gone after the previous nights raid, they got cocky and tried to steal the food from the UNRAW storehouse.   The soldiers that returned in the morning had to deal with a riot, and, oops, a few people were killed.   But the soldiers had behaved appropriately and done their best to restore order without excessive violence.  They claimed that there were 22 dead.

Sacco’s story has a very familiar ring, doesn’t it?

The ‘War with Iran’ propaganda machine is running full throttle.  First, there are the grand statements of propaganda denouncing the government for terrorism, barbarism, supporting terrorism, meddling in the affairs of their neighbors, not having a free press and other undemocratic practices.  All this floats atop the assumption/insinuation that they have a nuclear weapons program which will come to fruition in the very near future as an international menace of intolerable proportions.   Then the spinners.   There are 50 comments after every article and post, arguing, elaborating, spinning a story where the details have been obscured by lies, threats and counter-threats, innuendo, histrionics and a high energy conflagration of information with misinformation.  Ultimately, it’s really hard to predict whether there will be a strike on Iran just because there is so much unconstrained energy in the issue, and so little recourse to reason in addressing it.

After reading the article, I find myself inspired to add a few words to the ongoing discussion to address an aspect of The Atlantic’s presentation that has so far gone unmentioned. On the same web page,  embedded in one of  the first few paragraphs of the article, there is a video of  Jeffrey Goldberg conducting an interview with Christopher Hitchens that is a shameless piece of hysteria.   Ironically, the 6 minute video begins with a full 25 seconds of Bob Dylan singing The Gates of Eden (“Of war and peace the truth just twists . . . “).   During the first 15 seconds the camera pans the books in the book cases in the room,  (Hitchen’s study, perhaps?),  followed by the credits, and photos of Hitchens, who is being treated for cancer at present, and looks very ill, from a happier time.  We get the impression of a scholar who is both hip and wise, not to mention very well read, and long suffering.  When he speaks, Hitchens’ tone is hesitant, deeply emotional; he often looks down and fidgets before speaking.

Goldberg tells us Hitchens  has deep knowledge of the ‘Holocaust’, and “the protean eternal nature of antisemitism”.    Eternal antisemitism.  That’s a big statement, a cynical statement.  In a world where racism and greed have impoverished and debilitated broad swaths of humanity who have darker skin, who sit on resources other, better armed, races covet while they lack the basic necessities of life, water, for instance, we are to focus on man’s inhumanity to man in the form of  ’eternal’ bigotry against a religious sect, largely white, well fed and successful, who have been given permission to drive out the indigenous inhabitants of their ‘Promised Land’ and unconditionally supported in the establishment of their homeland through violent, separatist, racist policies towards their neighbors.

Hitchens is asked what he would do if he were in [Benyamin] Netenyahu.   Hitchens speaks reverently about the US role as the leader  in fostering Human Rights in the world, not just because we wrote the treaties, but because we convinced other countries to sign on to them.   He specifically mentions the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations and the Convention for Human Rights.  Apparently he hasn’t noticed that the US has openly scorned those conventions and repeatedly bullied, cheated and undermined the UN for some time now.    But apparently he’s assuming that you haven’t noticed either as he goes on to build his argument.   Iran, he says, has signed all kinds of treaties and guarantees that they have no ambitions to build a nuclear weapon.   So, if it “turns out” they have done so, then “there is no international law”.   And, if we find we have allowed this to happen, then “we have watched while [the law] was contemptuously dismantled”.

This is an curious basis, and his logic grows more fantastic with every statement.  If someone breaks the law, he argues, then there is no law, because if we allow this so far unproven violation to occur, then we are responsible for this fall into lawlessness, and this is important [because . . . . we are the law?]   By contrast, another country has placed themselves above the law,  refused to sign the salient treaties supporting human rights, rejecting WMD and showing a willingness to work with other nations,  built the bombs,  persists in a policy of ethnic cleansing and openly declares their right to attack their neighbors with impunity in the name of preemptive ‘defense’.   But our willing complicity in that project doesn’t undermine the law.   Moreover, our tolerance for that behavior is not a problem, and going back to the introduction, may not be sufficient to expiate ourselves for the aforementioned ‘protean eternal . . .’ bias against the population of that country and everyone else who shares their [religion?  ethnicity?].

Hitchens goes on to make some rather strong statements about those being menaced and under threat having an “obligation” to “take out” the offending regime.   Then he says, “don’t look at me like that, don’t look at the Jewish people like that”.   Apparently he isn’t aware that his statements are pretty menacing, and represent a serious threat to someone.   Furthermore, he contends to speak, not for Christopher Hitchens, not for the State of Israel, but for all of the Jewish People.   It is problematic enough to live in a country where you disagree with government policy which is assumed to be ‘speaking for you’, but the Jewish people aren’t safe anywhere from the aggressive little nation that insists on speaking for them.  As for Hitchens, he was invited to speak [for Israel], so I guess you can’t fault him on doing so.   He finishes his thought in a defensive tone, with the statement that if you haven’t acted, then you have acted.  Inaction is action, culpable action.   You deserve what you get. I suppose you could make this argument in a fever pitched crisis, but in the current case, it’s a little over the top.

Goldberg now raises the issue that Iran will point out (as I have above) that Israel has developed an arsenal of nuclear weapons outside the international treaties, i.e. outside the law.    Hitchens hangs his head, then looks up and responds defiantly, saying that he regrets the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, BUT, “there is a big difference a country that has a weapon to preserve a certain, what we used to call ‘balance of terror’, and one that wants one to upend the existing order”.  He refers to a regime (the Iranian Regime we must assume) that ” is a messianic dictatorship that crushes it’s own citizens and threatens the territories of it’s neighbors”.  If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is!  It’s true the Iranian theocracy is flawed, and more so recently, since they have been placed more and more on the defensive by those “preserving” the “balance of terror”, but a supporter of a country that was founded through ethnic cleansing,  and has preemptively attacked it’s neighbors repeatedly since it’s inception resulting in the occupation of neighboring territories nearly equal to it’s allotted area, is hardly in a position to criticize.

But let’s face it.  That is what this is really about, that idea that we have to ‘preserve the balance of terror’.   And what we are really talking about here is a ‘balance’, nay, an ‘imbalance’ of ‘power’ that we are preserving through the means of  ’terror’.   That’s what it’s all about.  But Hitchens really is, dare I say it, paranoid on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, which are conflated into a single entity in his mind.   When asked whether Israel’s nukes are required to “prevent another Holocaust”,  he says that perhaps if Israel had never existed, it would be OK with him, but now that it’s here “civilization” must defend Israel to prevent the “unthinkable”.    He goes on to say that if we have to pick on a client country for it’s corruption and human rights violations, we should pick Pakistan.   The remark is a petty indirection, but its an interesting choice, actually.  Pakistan, like Israel, was created by Great Britain in the process of unwinding it’s empire.   Like Israel, it was a gift to a small elite population, a bribe of sorts to insure their post-colonial loyalty, and imposed on the masses who now inhabit the country, and those who were forced to leave.     Here we are more than 60 years later, still trying to manage the consequences of  this disastrous policy.

So, more than enough analysis.  This interview ought to be an embarrassment,  to Jeffrey Goldberg and Christopher Hitchens, and to The Atlantic.    I suppose you can view it as propaganda, but Hitchens reality is so twisted, and his presentation so childlike and sulky that its just another sad testament to the pathetic level of analysis to which Americans are regularly subjected.    It really is time the mainstream media (and our President) give a hearing to independent and experience foreign policy experts who actually practice diplomacy.  To practice diplomacy, you have to be willing to talk to people.  Pragmatism in international relations doesn’t mean bowing to the baddest boy on the block, or the most deserving or the longest suffering.   It means working with others to construct reasonable solutions to real problems that that cause everyone to suffer.

I am sure there are all kinds of complex regional currents in the conflict.   It is true that Kyrgystan is a member of the SCO, and for purposes of local trade and regional solidarity, that makes sense.  However, the explanation for Russia and China’s reticence is very simple.  The US has it’s largest supply base for the Afghan war located in Kyrgystan.   The US has spent a fortune unconditionally supporting deposed President Bakyev to maintain this base, as they did with the corrupt government before him.    In that light, this base has most likely been a thorn in the side of the leaders of the SCO all along, so their boundaries are already compromised.   Now, if they go in to assist the new government in regaining order, their efforts will ultimately fall in one of two directions.  Either they will be expending their resources to protect US interests in the region, or they will be drawn into a proxy war against the US and it’s pawns.

Let me explain.   The government deposed by the recent coup was on the US payroll.  They were abusing their power within the country, but the US wasn’t concerned about that, as long as the base was secure.  Now, they are disgruntled at losing power, and using asymmetric warfare (terrorism) in an attempt to regain it.   The new government has said that they will continue to host the base, but hinted, I think, that they might review that decision when things settle down.   I don’t know if they are already on the US Payroll, but given that they asked China and Russia for help, I’m going to assume, they weren’t at that point.  So, if China or Russia goes in to support this new government under these circumstances, the US has a ready made insurgency in play, already on the payroll,  to undermine their efforts.

If, on the other hand, the new government buys into the US scheme and takes the money to keep the base open, then maybe the disgruntled opposition will find supporters around ethnic issues and local concerns and keep the fight going anyway.  If, in that case, Russia and/or China comes to the aid of the new government, they will basically be doing the dirty work of the US, defending US interests instead of their own.   So, as irritated as Russia and China must be, to see more western soldiers closing in on their periphery, this is not a fight they want to join.  It is lose/lose for them.   And Kyrgystan wouldn’t likely benefit either, as assistance from regional powers might trigger a long term, low intensity conflict there.     Better to hope that the US and their allies will come in, and become even more deeply mired in an extension of the Afghan war, a conflict they can’t win because they buy the leaders, but they don’t understand the region well enough to vision any goals that are meaningful to the local population.  From their standpoint, that would most likely be worth the cost of letting go.

The film begins with the director saying that, as an Israeli, he has never experienced antisemitism, so he is going to explore the subject in this film. The reason every American should see it is goes on to document the brainwashing  (I can’t think of anything else to call it) of a group of high school students from Tel Aviv.  The lesson begins with slides of the death camps being shown in their classroom, makes a stop in a Polish hotel where they are told that they can’t leave their rooms after dinner because Poland is too dangerous for Jews, and ends with a bitter, heart-wrenching, utterly terrifying  visit  to Auschwitz.   I have been documenting some of Israel’s crazy stories recently, but this is truly beyond belief.

The film follows also Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League on a Lobbying trip to Europe ending with a visit to Auschwitz.   It has  numerous interviews with ordinary American, European and Israeli people.  Between excerpts of the  Israeli young people’s and Abe Foxman’s journeys, there is a brief, but pithy statement from Uri Avnery and a very intense interview with Norman Finkelstein.    The web page for Defamation – The Film, is here.

And, here’s the Trailer:

Check it out.

Gilad is a popular Saxophone player and Jazz Artist in the UK, and his music is most enjoyable.   You can sample his work on Amazon and iTunes.     He’s also written a couple of novels that I can’t say much about because I haven’t read them.  However, he has a great website, which I highly recommend.  It is linked in on the sidebar.

But there are some significant, and quite reasonable players driving events behind the scenes.   The focus on Iyad Allawi and Nouri Al Maliki is not entirely surprising.  They both have the American seal of approval.   Mr. Al Maliki has, for the most part, been doing our bidding for several years, and Mr. Allawi has lived most of his adult life in the US, and was part of the original group that planned the invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein.   It is oft mentioned that Mr. Allawi is a Shiite with a strong Sunni following, but I am thinking he is most likely a garden variety Western secular person with no particular interest in the sectarian issues that drive native Iraqis.   Al Maliki was most likely approved by US ‘advisers’ because, when he left the country during the Iran Iraq war, he retreated to Syria, a secular country, rather than the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In fact, two coalitions more or less tied for first place in this election.  The Iraqiya Coalition, with which Mr.  Allawi is associated, and the State of Law Coalition, with which Mr.  Al Maliki is associated.  It’s true that Al Iraqiya won 91 seats, and The State of Law, only 89.   Out of 325 seats, this means that each won about 28% of the total seats.   The difference between the 2 leading coalitions was less than 1%.   This is a statistically meaningless difference.  To form a government requires the complicity of a group representing at least 50% of the seats.

This gives Iyad Allawi, as leader of Al Iraqiya, the right to make the first attempt at forming a government.   This is going to be difficult for Mr. Allawi because the coalition doesn’t represent any particular block of the population, and was assembled from diverse streams, one by one.  State of Law, however, is a break away from a much larger coalition of Shiite streams.  And there isn’t anything to stop State of Law from negotiating behind the scenes to pull together their own resources for forming a government behind the scenes.  The result is a lot of confusion and complaining.

Assuming the veracity of the previous statement, then there is going to be some stress in the system.  With Mr. Allawi and Mr. Al Maliki facing off for battle, we tend to see the contest in terms of (their) personalities.  We are encouraged, for instance, to judge Mr. Allawi on the fact that there are Sunnis in his coalition, so he might be a particularly fair minded individual.  We have been informed that Mr. Al Maliki, though he cooperated reasonably well with the occupation forces for the last 4 years, is a potential Iranian dupe.  And, of course, Mr. Al Maliki is using government resources, albeit without much success, to shore up his position through some rather shoddy tactics.  Both are presented to us as potential Iraqi ‘strongmen’, something we are told the Iraqis need.  But how much of a ‘strongman’ can a puppet be?

We are invited to consider the injustice of having a largely Shia government over the recently disenfranchised (20%) Sunni population.  I find the last argument particularly ironic given the utter lack of concern we, in the West, have shown for the Shiite majority in Iraq over the last hundred years or so, not to mention the Shiite majority in Lebanon (whose leadership are designated ‘terrorists’), and sizeable Shiite minorities in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, whom the US is concerned will somehow become empowered and inconvenience the states in which they reside.  Our preference for those Shiites is that they keep their heads down and avoid resistance, leaving the power to our longtime Sunni Allies in the region.

But there is a whole other level on which the final decision will be made, and which is not very clear to Americans.  Not only is it unclear because we don’t hear much about it, but it fades into the background because the process is so different from the one that underlies our own democracy.   We vote for a presidential candidate because we want person X to be president.   The Iraqis vote for Parliamentarians kind of the way we vote for Congressmen and Senators based a variety of local and federal issues, and local party affiliations.    The local vote in Iraq is, in fact, even further removed from their federal results because there are many small local parties that only join together at a higher level.

We have 2 parties with some auxiliaries which largely support the main parties.  In Iraq, they have many streams, which join various larger streams and eventually end up in the large coalitions we know about.  In fact there are at least 5 coalitions all the way up at the level where a Government must be assembled and a Prime Minister chosen.    They do not have the same consistency and identity that the parties here have.  Iraqiya and State of Law are the largest, but the next largest is the National coalition, which is largely comprised of the rest of the Shia not affiliated with the State of Law including the Sadrists and ISCI, well known to us for their early precedence in the Iraq Government . From our standpoint, they seem like insiders and outsiders, but from a local perspective, they are just are a diverse group of Shiite Islamist streams with deep roots in their communities.

The National coalition, among whom the Sadrists are currently the largest block, won 70 seats, 22% to the 28% each held by Iraqiya and State of Law, without a presumptive Prime Minister.   The Sadrists hold 40 of the 70 seats.   They say they are happy to join forces with the State of Law coalition, but under no circumstances will they accept Al Maliki as Prime Minister.  According to Ameer Al Kinani, a prominent member of the Sadrist block, the Sadrists don’t have any problem teaming up with the Iraqiya coalition either.  However, they also reject Iyad Allawi as a potential Prime Minister.

To make the point, several months ago, the Sadrists held a referendum in the areas where they are strong to find out the people’s choice for Prime Minister.  Ibrahim Al Jaafari won.  PM, Al Kinani said that although Ibrahim Al Jaafari is not their first choice for Prime Minister, they will accept him in that position because he is the choice of the people.   When asked if the Sunnis in the Iraqiya coalition presented a problem to the Sadrists, he said that they do not.   Any democratically elected person should have their seat in Parliament.   The thing is, Prime Minister is a political position, not an elected one.

The Sadrists are positioning themselves politically, in a similar way to Lebanon’s Hezbollah.  It’s not a surprise that their strategies resemble those of Hezbollah, not only because of the Iranian connection, but more directly because Hassan Nasrallah, the popular Secretary General of Hezbollah studied with Muqtada Al Sadr’s uncle.  They are a nationalist party opposed to international intervention.  They are supported by the working class and, and say that they advocate a direct vote sort of democracy.   Though affiliated with the Shiite Religious hierarchy, they are politically open those with similar political agendas.   Both Al Maliki and Allawi are tainted through their relationships with the occupier.    The Sadrist Block supported Al Maliki in his ascent to power, but he did not respond to their needs.  His focus on the ‘Rule of Law’ was enacted at their expense, while he failed to provide promised services and support systems for the  people.  Fresh water, sanitation and electricity are still extremely limited in Iraq, and especially in Baghdad.

The Kurds hold another 40 seats in the new Parliament.   Jalal Talabani is a popular first choice for President across pretty much all coalitions.  Talabani has been doing a lot of running around, and wining and dining of various groups since the election.   For a while, leading up to the election, it appeared he might retire, but the stakes are just too high.  Though President of Iraq is a largely ceremonial position, Talabani uses it well.   He is a facilitator, adviser and lobbyist, well liked and trusted by players on all sides, other than, perhaps, the Kurdish Gorran Party who are defectors from his own PUK party.   Numerous open and clandestine negotiations take place at his complex in Suleimaniya.

It is likely that the Kurds’ support will be required for  any coalition to be large enough to form a Government.  The Kurds aren’t necessarily concerned about who will be the Prime Minister, though they have had some problems in the past with Iyad Allawi, and Nouri Al Maliki has not applied the law to resolve the status of Kirkuk, a critical issue for them.  They are also not concerned about whether or not there are more or less Sunnis in their coalition.   They have worked with the Shiites so far, though they are mostly Sunni themselves.   However they do have some serious conditions for their support.  In order to receive their support, a coalition and it’s leadership must agree to enact Article 140 in the Iraqi Constitution.  This article says that they will hold a referendum in Kirkuk  to decide whether or not Kirkuk will be adjoined to the Kurdish Region of Iraq.

This is an interesting issue as there are lots of innuendo and dissembling around it.   Although the Kurds in Northern Iraq have been very helpful to the US during the lead up to the war and up to this point, and they do seem to have broad support from the US, the Kirkuk issue is where the line is drawn.   The US in particular, and the UN representing the international community are opposed to holding this referendum.   The Iraq government dithered and procrastinated and avoided their responsibility to enact this proposal from the day it was written to this day.   The International Crisis Group, an advisory group to the UN has written a report which suggests that if the referendum were held, it would lead to a civil war, a seemingly rather extreme prediction for a number of reasons.  Instead they suggest some variations on making the city a UN Protectorate, a solution that would put the oil rights, a critical point of contention, in limbo.

Not resolving a dispute seems an odd way of keeping peace.   Arabization programs 30 – 40 years ago, they are not keen on seeing it become, once again, a Kurdish center of power.   Early in the war, Kurds began returning to their homes in Kirkuk.   Some Arabs were starting to leave, when the  US promised to provide compensation to Arabs who chose to leave and allow the Kurds to return.   At this point, they stopped leaving and set down to wait for their compensation, with the Kurds camped in their back yards, so to speak.   But, the US never provided the compensation and a situation which was resolving itself, turned inward and began to boil.  The current status is the result of a strategy on non-resolution.

There is a mix of Kurds, Arabs and Turkomen in Kirkuk.    The city was primarily a Kurdish city when Saddam began his Arabization campaign, and it lies just on the border of the region governed by the Kurdish Regional Government.   Are there now enough Kurds present to win a referendum?  Probably.   The Kurds did not win the regional elections around Kirkuk, but they lost on a technicality.  They tied the winners without a significant number of votes that went to the new Kurdish Party, Gorran, which did not get enough votes overall to be seated.   Had those votes gone to the Kurdish Coalition, they would have been 2 seats ahead of the united opposition.  So, would the Kurds win?  Probably, but a decision based on a referendum would make a resolution possible either way.

While we are worrying about whether Iran will have excessive influence over the post-election formation of a Government in Iraq, and our government is most assuredly making some attempt to support their favored players in this process, internal forces are at work that will likely define the form that a future government will take.  I have discussed at some length, the interests of two relatively powerful second level coalitions.  The Kurds and the Sadrists appear at opposite polarities in the Iraqi political spectrum, but both have specific goals and are willing to compromise to have them met.  Both have problems with the presumptive Prime Ministers.  Both are looking at ways to address their concerns within the democratic system.

In a process where little streams trickle into larger ones and coalitions are formed like great rivers from hundreds of little streams flowing from the mountains, the voice of the people will coalesce in a very different way than in a rigidly defined 2 party system like our own.  We should be very careful about making assumptions about who will prevail and what the end result will look like.  We should also hope that our government will leave the Iraqi process enough room so that the Government will be formed through a meaningful consensus, which is the only way it can  possibly be empowered to handle the challenges of an independent nation.   Without a measure of unity and internal integrity, the new government will not be able to ensure the ultimate withdrawal of the occupying forces.

So how do I want to conclude this piece?  What important conclusions can we draw from the facts above?  First, and most importantly, the Iraqis do know what a democracy is, and they are capable of asserting their rights within a democratic system.    Next, it would seem that the second level of integrated powers in Iraq are discounted by the West, but if the democratic process is allowed to play out, they will strongly influence the shape Iraq’s new government will take, and the shape of Iraq’s future.   Finally, I would assume, if Nouri Al Maliki or Iyad Allawi is the next Prime Minister, that the democratic process was derailed by external influences.

But, there is some real news and the world press is reporting it:

The Nuclear Arms Conference in NY ended with a whimper.  They were unable to reconcile their view that a Nuclear Free Middle East is imperative with the US support for Israel’s nuclear arms, and Israel’s rejection of the NPT.    Attempts to direct the conference to censure Iran were blunted by the glaring inequity of nuclear armed  Israel, Pakistan and India, all non-signatories of the NPT, surrounding the region with Nukes.  US support for these nations makes it impossible to apply the necessary pressure to bring them into the fold.  It would be nice to see Obama spearhead such an effort.  That would mean something.

The US was just in the process of blowing off a first step towards normalizing relations with Iran made by Turkey and Brazil, and try to ram new sanctions through an unenthusiastic Security Council when Israel  saved the day by attacking civilian ships on the high sea, and alienating the entire world.  The US might have preserved some credibility if only Israel’s security and happiness didn’t trump common sense, the welfare of US citizens not on US soil and  loyalty to any and all other allies.  Now it’s going to be pretty tough to pull off.   Some of the current members of the Security Council just lost their incentive to play ball.   In fact, countries like Turkey and Ireland are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it any more.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has recently completed a formal process for new members to join the group.   This is good news to the 6 or 7 countries who currently have ‘observer’ status, but are contemplating the advantages of membership.   In particular, Pakistan and India appear to be ready to go for it.   The Pakistan Daily had the headline Pakistan a natural ally of SCO, Says China last week.   They are flattered and hopeful.  It’s no surprise to any sane person that the new civilian government in Pakistan is looking for a new patron.   Let’s face it, they have made a deal with the devil, economic support in return for the destruction of the integrity of the state, and it’s starting to take a serious toll.   They are quite ready to try a different club.

India is a more interesting situation.  They have options.   The West has been very supportive towards them, and they have some border tensions with China.  At one point they were thinking about joining NATO.   AHN, All Headline News from New Delhi says “”SCO Likely to Induct India Pakistan“.  They say that India now sees that the organization provides for regional security beyond what individual nations can achieve. Given their location, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but what this is really about is choosing sides in an emerging cold war that is already emitting some heat, and has the potential to get very hot.  A regional alliance might look the right move under the circumstances.

In another nascent regional alliance, Georgia, a US client state on the Russian border, has, as I mentioned in the previous post, just decided to throw in it’s lot with Iran.   Iran, unfortunately, is still not in a position to be admitted to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.   For a couple of years, Russia was supporting Iran’s entry to the group, but China took a more cautions stance in light of the stresses around Iran, and vetoed their application.   Following some recent diplomatic tensions, Russian President Medvedev said that a country under Security Council Sanctions would not be eligible for membership in the group.

This is not to say that Iran isn’t a critical resource for both China and Russia, as well as a close neighbor of Russia.  The fact that they don’t want to openly support Iran when it is under attack from a large and volatile consortium led by their primary adversary doesn’t mean that they won’t protect their interests there if necessary.   Their instinct is to keep the stakes as low as possible.  But anyone who thinks they can physically attack Iran without serious consequences beyond what Iran alone can muster, is making a big mistake.

And, finally, just a mention.  Hamid Karzai’s Jurgha has decided to negotiate with the Taliban.  Moreover, Afghanistan is also on the short list of countries pursuing  SCO membership.   What does that mean in the context of US plans for a massive incursion into Qandhar.   It doesn’t make much sense to waste all those lives and resources in this context.  So, why are we doing it?