Avuncular American

Paying Them To Be Pals

Do you remember the scene in David Lean's epic film, Lawrence of Arabia, where Colonel TE Lawrence, to shouts of "Aurens! Aurens!" rides back to his Bedouin allies in the company of... mercenaries?  "Killers, cutthroats," say the disgusted princes and tribal leaders.  Lawrence has bought himself some protection, but at the cost of the respect of those who are fighting with him for a cause.

A century later, we have lots of modern-day Lawrences in Army and Marine camouflage BDUs, mingling in the Middle East and hiking the Hindu Kush, alternately fighting and tea-drinking with the various bands that make up Iraq and Afghanistan's warring factions.  In Lean's film, it was Ottoman gold that inspired some of Lawrence's Arab allies.  Nowadays, it's more likely to be the shrinking US dollar, shrink-wrapped in bricks of $100 bills.

When I read that the Pentagon's budget is now to include CERP ("Commander's Emergency Response Program") money to woo the Taliban over to "our side," that image of Lawrence's mercenaries looms up.  The $1.3 billion allotted to CERP in Afghanistan may be a drop in the bucket, but as with all such things, has there been much thought given to what happens when the former baddies stop getting money?

Read Shane Bauer's great expose in the September Mother Jones, "The Sheikh Down," for a look at what your money buys in Iraq, where CERP payments created the "Awakening Councils" out of former enemies among the Sunni population.  It's an entertaining read, except the part about the shaking down of the American taxpayer, who gets to pay for "reconstruction" projects at many times their justified price, all in the name of keeping the peace.  Getting a piece, for the sheikhs profiled, is more like it.

But what happens when the money stops?  Surely even Pentagon planners can harbor hopes of a rosy future of declining budget lines when the CERP program "sunsets," to use a term from accounting-speak?  But will the Sunni fighters in Iraq and the ex-Taliban pocketing the payments understand it when the CERP paymasters say "Thanks guys, but our funding has zeroed-out."  Their guns and bombs, bought and paid for by American largess - who will they point them at now?

How about allegations that Italian payments to the Taliban for peace in their sector, when stopped and not communicated to French forces that inherited their zone, subsequently brought the Taliban's wrath on the unsuspecting French?  According to the Times of London, even the US Embassy in Rome protested to the Italian government about such practices.  But now the same thing is in the Pentagon budget?

Tom Engelhardt's "Tomgram" put it squarely: "Will Today's US-Armed Ally Be Tomorrow's Enemy?"  We've been there before, in the self-same Afghanistan:

Let me suggest just one lesson that seems to be on no one else's mind at a moment when a key "option" being offered in Washington -- especially by Democrats not eager to see tens of thousands more U.S. troops heading Afghanistan-wards -- is to arm and "train" ever more thousands of Afghans into a vast army and police security force for a government that hardly exists. Based on the last three decades in the region, don't you think that we should pause and consider who exactly we may be arming and who exactly we may be supporting, and whether, given those 30 years of history, we have the slightest idea what we're doing?

Americans with amnesia should go out and rent Charlie Wilson's War, a slick rendition of how we "bought" the Mujahideen those thirty years ago, who then became the Taliban, who then started getting CERP payments...

Reminders of the Bush Legacy: Torture, Iraq

It's been a while since I used my Iraq and Torture category tags.

For the latter, I've not written about torture since the Inauguration of President Obama.  Now not a day goes by without a new revelation about the depths of the previous administration's depravity, or a call for investigation, prosecution, accountability, or just plain truth.

On Iraq, well, that's been overshadowed by concerns over systemic survival and other cosmic economic matters.  But Iraq, as Secretary of State Clinton would tell us after her lightning visit this weekend, will not be forgotten: "As we draw down militarily, we will deepen our civilian cooperation," she said, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Nor will future generations be likely to forget Iraq, as they'll be paying for the "$3 Trillion War" for the foreseeable future.

Five years ago, you'd never have known that costs were a concern, or that the price of the Bush war on Iraq would include the soul of the United States.  Back then, the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC, Paul Bremer's hand-picked coterie of exiles from Saddam Hussein) apparently had nothing better to do than dream up a new symbolic flag for the country that was then tearing itself apart outside the Green Zone (see image, thanks to CRW "Flags of the World," of the ill-fated flag unveiled 26 April, 2004).  The flag was such a laughing stock that it joined other great IGC/CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) ideas in the dustbin of history.

While Viceroy Bremer and the IGC were playing at governance within the Emerald City, the niceties of torture were being observed at places like Abu Ghraib.  Just like the trillions that will haunt future generations, so too will the images of torture and abuse - soon to be multiplied by additional, graphic, horrors to be released next month.  Will that include photographic evidence of the sexual abuse of women and children that Seymour Hersh alluded to five years ago?

At a recent Brussels discussion of President Obama's 100 day report card, someone had the temerity to suggest that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, only "stylistic" changes.  It was all I could do to remain diplomatic and suggest that there were in fact many crucial policy differences, and a monumental moral difference.

The "Program" that Bush liked to justify was nothing other than what autocrats, bullies, and zealots have justified over the centuries, that the ends justified the means, and that only they could define what is permitted/forbidden, good/bad, us/them...  It was called "the unitary Presidency."

Those days are over, but should not be forgotten.  Today, in a style and with an erudition that few journalists can match, Frank Rich of the New York Times showed us the link between torture and Iraq.   The link was a straight line, drawn by crooked men.

30 Roman Candles: Iran 1979 - 2009

Just to save you from having to Google "Roman candle," here is Webster's definition: firework consisting of a tube that sends out a shower of sparks and a succession of balls of fire...

Rather a fitting metaphor for a 30th Islamic Revolution anniversary launch of its Omid satellite, no?

1979: the end of the reign of the Shah, who blew out no more birthday candles in his homeland.

It was the year where U.S. support of the Shah led to the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran.  The start of 30 years of mutual recrimination, leading to fraught interaction with political Islam, from Algeria to Afghanistan.

1979 was my first year in the US Foreign Service.  One of my classmates in a consular training course became one of the hostages in Tehran, and later I studied Arabic with people who had been spirited out of Iran by a courageous Canadian Embassy.

The Financial Times has put together a nice interactive timeline of 30 years of Iranian-American relations, and the Middle East Institute has gathered 53 experts and academics to comment on the Revolution at 30.

Okay, so what's next?  Stanford's Abbas Milani, writing in the Boston Review ("Common Cause: Real Help for Iranian Democrats"), thinks that

Citizen diplomacy and solidarity must become a pillar of a new American policy in Iran. Regular civic contacts—inviting Iranian artists, musicians, filmmakers, scholars, and human rights activists to the United States—would be the natural first step. Sports exchanges, for which there are some precedents, and visits by tourists and business groups to Iran and the United States, can help create an atmosphere of mutual trust, a necessary prelude to the success of both citizen and state support for democracy in Iran.

We might have an early manifestation of such "citizen diplomacy" this very week.  Blogger Charles J. Brown in "Undiplomatic" spotted a State Department press release about the visit of

a delegation of 12 Americans, including eight female athletes, coaches, and managers representing USA Badminton, to Tehran, Iran, from February 3-9th.

Rather intriguing, I'd say, especially given all the speculation about "change" coming to US-Iranian relations, after the Bush Administration opened the door in its final days to allowing the US-based American Iranian Council (AIC) to establish an office in Tehran.

Admittedly, badminton teams and an AIC office do not a new policy make.  But amidst Israeli saber rattling, Iranian missile launching, and assorted predictions of war, these are hopeful little signs.

Watch for an Obama Administration decision on the establishment of an American diplomatic or consular office, which Bush considered and then put off for the new President's in box.

Update:  Bad news on the "soft power" front: News flash from the BBC: "The British Council says it has suspended all operations in Tehran after staff members were intimidated by the Iranian authorities. The council, which promotes cultural and educational ties, says pressure has been growing over its activities."   The orders came from the office of Iran's President, and there are indications that Iran's ultra-conservatives were increasingly worried about the effectiveness of the British Council's work.

As Abbas Milani says of efforts to engage with Iran, nothing is easy: "Only the wisdom and humanity of concerned and informed citizens, combined with a new prudence in American policy, can navigate the treacherous waters ahead."

Update II: Abbas Milani was so right.  As I was writing this post, the Iranians turned down the badminton team's visa application: " "The issuing of visa (sic) is a time-consuming procedure," said a Foreign Ministry spokesman.  As The Hegemonist said in his comment: "I can't believe the news that the Iranians botched the badminton and launched a satellite during Obama's first two weeks in office. It's beginning to look like they want to stay on America's bad side."  To paraphrase the Iranian spokesman, "The normalization of relation is a time-consuming procedure."  Decades-long.

(Photo of Iranian flag - MediationChannel.com)

Moyen-Orientations de l'Administration Obama

Note: Because I am lazy, I am skipping a translation of my presentation at an Inauguration Day debate sponsored by two Brussels think tanks on "Change or status quo in the Middle East. Analysis of the geopolitical landscape and strategic direction of the new U.S. administration. Which role for the EU?"

Apologies to non-French speakers.  Stay tuned for a wrap up of the conference (in English!).  NDLR pour les francophones: mon clavier QWERTY n'ayant pas d'accents, je mets mon texte EN LETTRES MAJUSCULES.

-------------------

MERCI, MONSIEUR LE PRESIDENT, MAIS JE PRECISE QUE JE NE REPRESENTE QUE LES "DEMOCRATS" DE LA BELGIQUE, DONT JE SUIS UN DES PORTE-PAROLES.  JE NE SUIS PLUS REPRESENTANT DU GOUVERNEMENT AMERICAIN DEPUIS QUE J’AI QUITTE LA DIPLOMATIE, FIN 2002.

MES REMERCIEMENTS AUX INSTITUTS MEDEA ET IERI D’AVOIR ORGANISE CETTE CONFERENCE LE JOUR DE L’INVESTITURE DU PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.  COMME CA NOUS POUVONS PARLER AU PRESENT, ET FAIRE ALLUSION A GEORGE W. BUSH COMME “L’ANCIEN PRESIDENT DES ETATS-UNIS.”  IL EST MAINTENANT DU PASSE – ET, JE CROIS, SERA PEU REGRETTE A TRAVERS LE MONDE.

LE THEME DE CETTE CONFERENCE A ETE BIEN CHOISI, AINSI QUE LES CONFERENCIERS, QUI REPRESENTENT L’EVENTAIL DES PAYS ESSENTIELS A L’ETABLISSEMENT D’UNE PAIX DURABLE AU MOYEN ORIENT.  JE DIRAIS QU’ENTRE LE CHANGEMENT OU LE STATU QUO, IL N’ Y A VRAIMENT PAS DE CHOIX.  IL N’EST PAS ETONNANT, POUR QUELQU’UN QUI A LUTTE POUR L’ELECTION DE BARACK OBAMA, QUE JE PREFERE LE CHANGEMENT.

CAR LE STATU QUO – GUERRES, TREVES, TERRORISME, OCCUPATION – N’EST PAS DURABLE, MEME SI CETTE SITUATION PERDURE DEPUIS PLUS D’UN DEMI-SIECLE.  COMME LE TERME “MOYEN-ORIENT” NE SE LIMITE PAS A LA QUESTION DE L’AVENIR D’ISRAEL ET DE LA PALESTINE, LE CHANGEMENT DOIT AUSSI S’APPLIQUER A LA REGION ENTIERE.

MAIS PAS A LA FACON BUSH:  UNILATERALE, MESSIANIQUE, AVEC RECOURS AUX ARMES D’ABORD, COMME DANS UN WESTERN.  CELA NOUS A LAISSE UN HERITAGE DE HAINE, DE GUERRE, ET D’ECHEC.  VOILA LA SITUATION MOYEN-ORIENTALE DONT HERITE LE PRESIDENT OBAMA.

BUSH A DIT QUE LA ROUTE VERS JERUSALEM PASSE PAR BAGDAD.  NOUS AVONS VU QUE CET ITINERAIRE ETRANGE NOUS A AMENE A FAIRE UNE ENORME DEVIATION.  HUIT ANNEES DE TERGIVERSATIONS EN PASSANT PAR KABUL ET BAGDAD, MAIS AUSSI PAR UNE FEUILLE DE ROUTE QUI A FINI, SANS VERITABLE SUIVI, A ANNAPOLIS IL Y A UN PEU PLUS D’UN AN.

BUSH NE S’EST JAMAIS INVESTI AUTANT POUR LA PAIX QUE POUR LA GUERRE, OU LA LUTTE CONTRE LE TERRORISME, QU’IL A UNE FOIS ASSIMILE A UNE CROISADE.  LE CHANGEMENT AVEC CETTE POLITIQUE DOIT DONC ETRE NET, ET URGENT.  “URGENT” - MAIS COMMENT, VU LA CONJONCTURE?

LE PRESIDENT OBAMA AURA – C’EST LE MOINS QU’ON PUISSE DIRE – DU PAIN SUR LA PLANCHE.  NON SEULEMENT AU MOYEN-ORIENT MAIS TOUT D’ABORD DANS SON PROPRE PAYS.  CAR UNE AMERIQUE AFFAIBLIE ECONOMIQUEMENT, MORALEMENT, ET INTELLECTUELLEMENT NE PEUT PAS CONDUIRE UNE QUETE INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PAIX, AVANT DE SE REDRESSER.

VOUS POSEZ LA QUESTION, “QUEL ROLE A JOUER POUR L’UNION EUROPEENNE?”  JE REPONDS, CITANT LE PRESIDENT OBAMA: “L’AMERIQUE N’A PAS DE MEILLEUR PARTENAIRE QUE L’EUROPE.”  SUR LES NEGOTIATIONS ISRAELO-PALESTINIENNES, MAIS AUSSI SUR UNE RESOLUTION DU PROBLEME NUCLEAIRE IRANIEN, L’EUROPE POURRA JOUER UN ROLE CLEF AVEC UNE ADMINISTRATION OBAMA.

AU SEIN DE L’OTAN, QUI REGROUPE LES ETATS-UNIS AVEC LA PLUPART DES PARTENAIRES EUROPEENS, L’ARRIVEE DE BARACK OBAMA POSERA DE NOUVEAU LA QUESTION DU PARTAGE DES RESPONSABILITES.  EN AFGHANISTAN, LE NOUVEAU PRESIDENT VOUDRA ACCELERER LA LUTTE CONTRE LES TALIBAN ET AL-QAEDA, ET CECI NECESSITE UN ROLE RENFORCE POUR LES MEMBRES EUROPEENS DE L’ALLIANCE ATLANTIQUE.  CHOSE PLUS FACILEMENT EVOQUEE QUE REALISEE.

SUR D’AUTRES QUESTIONS QUI TOUCHENT LA REGION DU GRAND MOYEN-ORIENT – PAR EXEMPLE, LE ROLE DE LA TURQUIE COMME PONT GEOSTRATEGIQUE ENTRE L’EUROPE ET LE MONDE MUSULMAN - PLUSIEURS NOTES DISCORDANTES POURRAIENT S’ENTENDRE ENTRE L’EUROPE ET LES ETATS-UNIS D’OBAMA.  MAIS, COMME A EVOQUE SON SECRETAIRE D’ETAT-DESIGNEE HILLARY CLINTON LORS DE SON DISCOURS RECENT DEVANT LE SENAT: “DES DESACCORDS SERONT INEVITABLES, MEME PARMI LES AMIS LES PLUS PROCHES,  MAIS SUR LA PLUPART DES QUESTIONS INTERNATIONALES, NOUS N’AVONS PAS D’AUTRES ALLIES PLUS DIGNE DE CONFIANCE” [QUE L’EUROPE].

DANS L’EQUIPE OBAMA-CLINTON DE CONSEILLERS POUR LES PROBLEMES DU MOYEN-ORIENT, TOUT N’EST PAS PARFAIT.  COMME A DIT L’EXCELLENT JOURNALISTE ROGER COHEN DU NEW YORK TIMES ET DU HERALD TRIBUNE, “L’EQUIPE DE REVE” AURAIT DU INCLURE DES NOMS COMME PAR EXEMPLE SHIBLEY TELHAMI, FAWAZ GERGES, ET JAMES ZOGBY.

OR, ILS SONT ABSENTS.  TANDIS QUE PLUSIEURS ANCIENS CONSEILLERS DE L’ADMINISTRATION CLINTON SONT TOUJOURS PRESENTS, TEL DENNIS ROSS (ANCIEN NAVETTEUR POUR LA PAIX), JAMES STEINBERG (ANCIEN HAUT RESPONSABLE AU DEPARTEMENT D’ETAT); DAN KURTZER (ANCIEN AMBASSADEUR AUPRES D’ISRAEL), ET MARTIN INDYK (QUI, AVANT D’ETRE AUSSI L’AMBASSADEUR AMERICAIN EN ISRAEL, FAISAIT PARTIE DU PLUS IMPORTANT LOBBY PRO-ISRAELIEN A WASHINGTON). 

EXPERIMENTES, CERTES.  MAIS COMME LE DIT ROGER COHEN, IL MANQUE UN CONTRE-POIDS PROVENANT DE LA TRES IMPORTANTE COMMUNAUTE ARABO-MUSULMANE AUX ETATS-UNIS.  CECI SERA PRIMORDIAL SI MON PAYS ESPERE REPRENDRE LE ROLE D’INTERLOCUTEUR ESSENTIEL ENTRE LES ETATS ARABES ET ISRAEL, ET SI LES ETATS-UNIS PENSENT FORMER UNE EQUIPE DE TAILLE AVEC L’UNION EUROPEENNE POUR UNE SOLUTION GLOBALE AUX NOMBREUX PROBLEMES DE LA REGION.

TOUT N’EST PAS PARFAIT EN CE PREMIER JOUR DE LA PRESIDENCE OBAMA.  DANS LE FILM “LAWRENCE D’ARABIE,” PENSEZ A LA SCENE OU LE CHEF DE TRIBU JOUE PAR ANTHONY QUINN – ETONNE DE TROUVER UN COLONEL LAWRENCE MORTEL, FAILLIBLE – LUI DIT “TU N’ES PAS... PARFAIT!”  NOUS AUSSI, NOUS SERONS DECUS PLUS D’UNE FOIS PAR UN HOMME QUI VEUT INCLURE DANS SA REFLECTION DES OPINIONS DIVERGENTES, MEMES CELLES QUI SONT A L’OPPOSE DES NOTRES.

MAIS NOUS NE SOMMES QU’AU DEBUT.  LE CHANGEMENT DEMANDE DE L’AUDACE, ENCORE UN MOT EMPLOYE PAR MON TOUT NOUVEAU PRESIDENT.  QUI AURAIT PENSE QU’UN ANCIEN MILITANT CONSIDERE COMME “TERRORISTE,” MENACHEM BEGIN, ARRIVE A LA TETE DE SON PAYS, AURAIT ACCEUILI L’ANCIEN PUTSCHISTE ANOUAR SADATE, LUI MEME DEVENU CHEF D’ETAT, POUR ETABLIR UNE PAIX QUI DURE DEPUIS PLUS DE 3 DECENNIES ENTRE LEURS PAYS?

ATTENDONS UN PEU, LAISSONS NOTRE NOUVEAU CHEF D’ETAT ETABLIR SA LISTE DE PRIORITES – IL VA CERTAINEMENT PLACER LE MOYEN-ORIENT PARMI LES PLUS URGENTES.  MAIS N’OUBLIONS PAS: LA TOUTE PREMIERE DES PRIORITES SERA DE METTRE FIN A UN PROBLEME ESSENTIELLEMENT DE RESPONSIBILITE AMERICAINE: LE RETRAIT EN BON ORDRE DES TROUPES AMERICAINES DE L’IRAK.

D’UNE FACON PERVERSE, PEUT-ETRE QUE LE PRESIDENT BUSH AVAIT RAISON APRES TOUT QUAND IL A DIT AU DEBUT DE SON PREMIER MANDAT  “LA ROUTE DE JERUSALEM PASSE PAR BAGDAD.”  MAIS CE N’EST PAS LE BON ITINERAIRE QUE BUSH A CHOISI.  IL FAUT PRENDRE LA SORTIE – METTRE FIN A LA PRESENCE DES TROUPES U.S. EN IRAK – AFIN D’AVANCER AU COEUR DU MOYEN ORIENT VERS UNE SOLUTION AU PROBLEME ISRAELO-PALESTINIEN.

BARACK OBAMA COMMENCE SON MANDAT AUJOURD’HUI, A L’HEURE MEME DE NOTRE DISCUSSION.  RESTE A VOIR SI LA SITUATION SUR LE TERRAIN LUI LAISSERA LE TEMPS NECESSAIRE DE REUNIR TOUS LES ACTEURS, EN CONCERT AVEC L’EUROPE, AFIN D’OEUVRER POUR UNE PAIX DURABLE ENTRE ISRAEL ET UN ETAT INDEPENDANT DE PALESTINE. 

MERCI.

-------------------

Dubya We Hardly Knew Ye

In some ways, we think we know George W. Bush too well.

He's been President of the United States for eight interminable years.  Today begins his last full week, for those who don't have the official Countdown Out of Office Calendar.

For the 3,000 to 5,000 American families who homes are repossessed daily, Bush has a permanent place in their broken hearts.

To the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died since his invasion of their country, "Boosh" will be shorthand for their multiple reasons to hate.  To the families of American soldiers killed there, they will not be able to see his name without remembering who sent their sons and daughters to his war of choice.

And for generations of Americans to come, he will be remembered as the leader who saddled them with insurmountable debt and a stricken economy, rivaling Herbert Hoover in opprobrium.

(Thanks to MAD Magazine and Warner Bros. for their unforgettable poster)

But do we know George W. Bush at all?  Don't look for much help in his endless series of "legacy" interviews, where he finds fault with everyone but himself for the country's parlous state.  Not much help either from the "biopic" by Oliver Stone, despite Josh Brolin's best efforts at impersonification, as Dubya might say.  What is George W. Bush?

Anti-government? (though he expanded both government payroll and national debt as no President before him).  Christianist zealot? (though jeopardized the lives of his fellow religionists in the Middle East, who lost a longtime safe haven in Iraq).  "Master of Business Administration?" (his MBA got him nowhere in "managing" the meltdown brought on by his policy of malign neglect).  I suspect the books analyzing his psyche will continue to be legion, to be added to groaning bookshelves full of tomes attacking his policies while in office.

My apologies to fans of the Irish tune "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye," and to Kenneth O'Donnell, who appropriated the title for his book on the lamented John F. Kennedy.  No one will lament Dubya.  But he remains an enigma.

I've been reminded by conservative readers that W. probably won't be - and they think he shouldn't be - tried for war crimes.  On the prediction, they're probably right.  On his guilt, well you just have to read the indictment.  It will take more than four or eight years of an Obama Administration to wash away the stain that Bush's torture policies left on a sullied American reputation.

But here's a Travel Warning to the soon-to-be-ex-President: if I were you, I would avoid travel to democratic countries that have an independent judiciary.  Once out of office, the aura of the US Presidency and the immunity it affords will no longer be a force to dissuade prosecutors who respect human rights.  You might just get pursued beyond the borders of Crawford, so it might be best to lie low.

And please, please, don't write any books.  Even Spell Check won't be able to correct your twisting of the language, and of the truth.  Just cut some brush, and fade away.  We won't be needing your advice any more, thank you.

Giving Information Ministers a Bad Rep

Cholera is a calculated, racist attack on Zimbabwe by the unrepentant former colonial power, which has enlisted support from its American and Western allies so that they can invade the country.

Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, Zimbabwe Information Minister (CNN, 15 December 2008)

There are no American troops in Baghdad! The infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad.  We slaughtered them.

Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, aka "Baghdad Bob," Iraq Information Minister (USA Today, April 2003)

It's unfair to all those earnest information ministers out there in the world to quote two of the most notorious deniers-of-reality of this century.  Just Google ministry of information and see what you come up with.  Links to information ministries in all manner of countries with little or no press, free or otherwise, but a helpful ministry to provide whatever meets their approved version of reality.

During the two World Wars, Britain had a Ministry of Information, which, according to the UK National Archives, was "the central government department responsible for publicity and propaganda."

The United States has no such "central government department," though some would argue that it needs one.  Public Diplomacy, the responsibility of the State Department, vies with "Strategic Communication," which increasingly has a military accent.  In such quality blogs as "Mountain Runner," observers like Matt Armstrong engage readers to ponder what institutional and legislative arrangements best suit the U.S.  Ex-USIA officers Patricia Kushlis and Patricia Lee Sharpe in Whirled View show how much of the experience acquired under the defunct United States Information Agency has been lost after its forced absorption into the State Department almost a decade ago.

This post is not really intended to give proper treatment to a very weighty subject (Matt is doing that in a big way next month in a conference in Washington).  But last week's outburst from the Zimbabwe Information Minister blaming cholera on everyone but his own president's misrule underlined again that it's not the messenger, nor the medium, but the underlying reality that counts.

America's progress in "the war of ideas" will depend - as has its failure in the last eight years - on the content of its policies.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Practice what you preach.  What goes around, comes around.  Reap what you sow.

It matters much less whether the Minister of Information or the White House Spokesman provides the (dis)information.  Credibility, once lost, takes ages to restore. Among the many things that must be done starting January 20, restoring America's reputation will take everything that a President Obama can give it.

Bush: The Dog Ate My Intelligence Failure

I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

George W. Bush, President of the United States, January 20, 2001 - January 20, 2009
(Interview with ABC News Charlie Gibson, December 1, 2008)

"...But I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."  Gibson then asks Bush "If the intelligence had been right [i.e., that Saddam had no WMD], would there still have been an Iraq war?"   Bush demurs: "it's hard for me to speculate."  Whereas we all know that Saddam was toast no matter what: WMD or no, Bush was going to invade Iraq.

Compare Bush's "regrets" over faulty information on WMD to this from Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary in the first term, who said right after the invasion that Saddam's supposed possession of WMD was simply "the one reason everyone could agree on" and was chosen as the main justification for "bureaucratic reasons."

As Greg Sargent puts it in TPM Election Central

For Bush to blame the failure of intel for his decision to invade is not a concession at all, and it is not an admission of failure on his part. Rather, it is the opposite of these things. It is an evasion of responsibility for what happened.

I think the good people at CartoonStock should come up with a Bush version of "The Dog Ate My Homework."  And the US mainstream media should cease and desist from granting self-serving interviews to a man who appears to have nothing better to do, while the edifice that he took charge of crumbles around him in his last 50 days.

"The Victory So Far" In Iraq Is Reversible

We believe that the conditions are such now that we are able to celebrate the victory that we've had so far

Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary, November 19, 2008

The progress does remain fragile and does remain reversible

General David Petraeus, October 7, 2008

"Victory" is a dangerous word to deploy, especially when your generals on the ground avoid using it, and especially not loosely.  Ever since "Mission Accomplished," the Bush Administration has been searching for formulas to describe kicking the Iraq can down the road to January 20, finally seizing on the amorphous "upon success."  Where "success" can be defined whichever way they choose.  The benchmark is now the Thanksgiving Day passage by the Iraqi Parliament of the Strategic Framework for Iraqi-US Relations, plus the Status of Forces Agreement.  At least the Iraqis get to have their say: no such vote is scheduled for the US Congress.

But Ms. Perino's odd formulation - "the victory that we've had so far" - is so weaselly.  "So far," meaning until January 20, 2009?  No guarantees for what happens after that.  And what if Iraqi passage is just the prelude to disagreements over the interpretation of the texts?  After all, the Arabic version of the documents calls them the "withdrawal accords."

Here's an important McClatchy piece on the curious silence coming out of Washington on what the agreements mean, depending on where you're sitting:

The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation than the Iraqi government of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement, U.S. officials said Tuesday — just hours before the Iraqi parliament was to hold its historic vote.

These include a provision that bans the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors.

Officials in Washington said the administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes.

Those differences in interpretation could be exactly the kind of poisonous legacy that the Obama Administration will have to contend with when it first meets with the Iraqi Government.  And these are not over minor technicalities: launching attacks from Iraq (on Iran? Syria?); notification of US military operations on (presumably sovereign) Iraqi soil; legal jurisdiction over US troops and contractors (see Abu Ghraib, Blackwater shootings).

"The victory we've had so far," when 146,000 US troops maintain a tenuous status quo amidst Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish populations that have been driven apart by Bush's 2003 invasion, is indeed "fragile and reversible."

Enter President-Elect Barack Obama, who will want to carry through responsibly with his commitment to withdraw US troops from Iraq.  In less than two months, he'll be Commander in Chief.  Which means he'll have to contend with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen, has been calling attention of late to the massive logistical tail in Iraq, and the time-consuming difficulties of removing it as troops draw down.

Now, I appreciate the need to "power-wash" thousands of military vehicles before they're shipped back to the US, and to shrink-wrap helicopters to protect them from the salt air en route to their home bases (see this excellent article on the logistical logjam of pulling out from Iraq in Tom Dispatch).

But the logistical tail cannot wag the political dog.  Pulling out might be hard, it might be dangerous, but the Withdrawal party just won big on November 4 over the War party.  It's as simple as that.  And remember, when the Iraqi Parliament ratifies the SOFA and the Strategic Framework, their copy of the agreement will read "The Withdrawal Accords."

L'Ennemi Intime - France in Algeria

Florent-Emilio Siri's 2007 film "L'Ennemi Intime" (The Intimate Enemy) has been referred to by more than one reviewer as "the French 'Platoon.'"  While it happens to be an excellent Vietnam film and one of Oliver Stone's best, I wouldn't rate "Platoon" in quite the same historical category as "L'Ennemi Intime."

The main difference?  Siri's film is written by French historian and documentary film maker Patrick Rotman, who himself made a three part documentary by the same title in 2002.  "L'Ennemi Intime," whether the Siri/Rotman feature film or the Rotman documentary, transports the audience into the hell that was France's war in Algeria from 1954 to Algerian independence in 1962.

For those whose sole reference for cinematic treatment of the Algerian war is the timeless "Battle of Algiers," I highly recommend "L'Ennemi Intime" (for an excellent resume of the Algerian war oeuvre - in French - see DVDtoile.com and this in the Herald Tribune).  Siri and Rotman, while trying to make this tough subject accessible to the film-going public, obviously had both education and posterity in mind when they created the film's official website.  Few film makers have exhibited such a serious approach to educating their public: there's a teaching guide, bibliography, interactive map, lexicon...

But what about the film, you're asking?  Steel yourself for: the aftereffects of napalm (not only used in Vietnam); torture of captured Algerians by French soldiers; collective punishment of civilians by both sides; and the "sourire Kabyle" (throat-slitting by FLN of French soldiers or suspected sympathizers)... It's a tough film, but portrays this "sale guerre" with true attention to historical detail.

The casting is first rate: just compare Rotman's documentary to Siri's film, and you see how much lead actors Benoit Magimel and Albert Dupontel look like the real conscripts sent off to maintain "Algerie Francaise."  Fellag (playing, appropriately, a captive FLN "fellagha") and other North African actors have key roles, showing how torn Algerians were between colonial occupiers and guerrillas fighting in the "zone interdite."  The location filming in next-door Morocco is an excellent stand-in for Kabylie of 1959; Cesar-nominated cinematographer Gianni Fiore Coltellacci provides haunting images.

The "fog of war" is ever-present; whether on night patrol or scanning the craggy valleys with binoculars by day, no one is ever quite sure whose side the others are on.  And as Patrick Rotman shows in his documentary of the same name, "the intimate enemy" is sometimes yourself.  How do you go back to life in Swinging Sixties France after you've tortured a prisoner?

Some day, a director might make an "American Ennemi Intime," where the moral fog of the War on Terror catches up with those who carried out - or who ordered - "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Alistair Horne, whose book "A Savage War of Peace" remains the English-language reference on the Algerian war of independence, and has been called "Bush's Favorite Historian," tried to instruct former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the parallels between Algeria and Iraq after seeing the news from Abu Ghraib.  Appropriate in its lack of appreciation for irony, Rumsfeld wrote this back to Horne: "as you well know, we do not believe in torture..."

As the poster for "L'Ennemi Intime" says: "Il n'y a pas pire ennemi que soi-meme" - you're your own worst enemy.  We may have to wait a long time for an American equivalent.

Avuncular American's First Anniversary

With all the excitement over the elections in the States, I almost let the anniversary of my first year of blogging slip by.  Looking back at my first posts in November 2007, I see that I wrote a good deal more about Iraq than I have done recently (that is likely to change once Barack Obama is inaugurated).  There were several posts on the complicated Belgian political situation, which though it has calmed somewhat, remains complicated and never-ending.  It's the national sport.

One topic - torture, as in US practice of - is one that I would much prefer never having had to write about.  If today's article by Mark Benjamin in Salon is right - "Obama's Plans For Probing Bush Torture" - we may all be learning more about the truth behind Bush's assertion that "This government does not torture people."  In the past year of blogging, I've noticed that whenever I do a post about torture, much of my readership seems to fade away.  Denial?

During this strange post-election, lame duck, transition, phony war period, there will be plenty to write about.  Like many others who supported the candidacy of Barack Obama, I will be scrutinizing the news coming out of Transition HQ, to make sure that realpolitik does not trump the wishes of real people who elected the next president.

But the advent of a new, popularly elected administration, one which has to undo so much that harmed the very foundations of the United States, should account for a slight change of tone in the months ahead.  After all, "avuncular" is in my URL: "In the manner of an uncle, pertaining to an uncle, hence, kind, genial, benevolent or tolerant" according to Wiktionary.

I think Barack Obama should bring out the avuncular in me.