Inactive Rebunk
For a variety of reasons, none of which we will get into at this time or place, Rebunk is closing its doors. We have enjoyed working with each other and with HNN. We have especially liked engaging all of our readers, and can only hope that you feel the same.
Lest there be any confusion, all of us remain good friends, and would like it very much if you would visit us at our other sites online:
Derek Catsam at DCAT.
Stephen Tootle and Tom Bruscino at Big Tent.
Richard Holmes at Slice of Life.
(We'll be sure to let you know if and when Marc Bacharach gets his own blog.)
All our best,
Rebunk
Lest there be any confusion, all of us remain good friends, and would like it very much if you would visit us at our other sites online:
Derek Catsam at DCAT.
Stephen Tootle and Tom Bruscino at Big Tent.
Richard Holmes at Slice of Life.
(We'll be sure to let you know if and when Marc Bacharach gets his own blog.)
All our best,
Rebunk
According to the Washington Post , “Uzbekistan formally evicted the United States yesterday from a military base that has served as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions to Afghanistan since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday.” The eviction came as an unwelcome surprise, since it will cost the US “several logistical problems for its operations in Afghanistan,” and a great deal more money. It is also important to remember that the nation is home to oil and gas reserves as well.
According to the article, part of the reason for the eviction notice has been the increasing amount of tension caused by America's emphasis on democracy and human rights. According to a “senior official,” “We all knew basically that if we really wanted to keep access to the base, the way to do it was to shut up about democracy and turn a blind eye to the refugees” (click here and here for descriptions of Uzbekistan’s terrible human rights record). A June editorial in the Washington Post seemed to credit a delay in bringing the issue to a head on “the Pentagon, which jealously guards its relationship with Mr. Karimov [the countries dictator] and has deliberately undercut past attempts by Congress and the State Department to pressure him.”
If this is all true, and American pressure on human rights and democracy have caused the country to demand our exist, then I would be remiss if I did not commend the Bush administration for following through on its pledge to push for greater democracy and freedom in those areas of the world.
In November of 2003, Bush made a speech in which he said the following radical words:
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.”
The speech was perhaps one of the greatest and most profound in his presidency, and I said so at the time (the media, predictably, gave it little attention). By acknowledging our mistakes of the past, Bush was able to re-create American foreign policy with a new emphasis on democracy and freedom. The war on Iraq was, in my opinion, a magnificent blunder in that it tried to force democracy in a country relatively unilaterally and incompetently. Other actions however, have been far more productive and illustrate our commitment to expanding democracy, even at the expense of short-term strategic assets. Of course, we will never truly be able to assert our moral authority so long as the West is unable to free itself from its addiction to Middle Eastern oil, and obviously countries whose populations have been radicalized through decades of indoctrination must be dealt with slowly and carefully.
Nevertheless, I welcome Uzbekistan’s eviction as a badge of honor. Contrary to the international image as a global empire, the US will leave the country without a fight. The greatest military power on earth will voluntarily depart a strategic location because it has asked us to and we will not backtrack on its human rights record. This is the United States at its absolute best.
According to the article, part of the reason for the eviction notice has been the increasing amount of tension caused by America's emphasis on democracy and human rights. According to a “senior official,” “We all knew basically that if we really wanted to keep access to the base, the way to do it was to shut up about democracy and turn a blind eye to the refugees” (click here and here for descriptions of Uzbekistan’s terrible human rights record). A June editorial in the Washington Post seemed to credit a delay in bringing the issue to a head on “the Pentagon, which jealously guards its relationship with Mr. Karimov [the countries dictator] and has deliberately undercut past attempts by Congress and the State Department to pressure him.”
If this is all true, and American pressure on human rights and democracy have caused the country to demand our exist, then I would be remiss if I did not commend the Bush administration for following through on its pledge to push for greater democracy and freedom in those areas of the world.
In November of 2003, Bush made a speech in which he said the following radical words:
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.”
The speech was perhaps one of the greatest and most profound in his presidency, and I said so at the time (the media, predictably, gave it little attention). By acknowledging our mistakes of the past, Bush was able to re-create American foreign policy with a new emphasis on democracy and freedom. The war on Iraq was, in my opinion, a magnificent blunder in that it tried to force democracy in a country relatively unilaterally and incompetently. Other actions however, have been far more productive and illustrate our commitment to expanding democracy, even at the expense of short-term strategic assets. Of course, we will never truly be able to assert our moral authority so long as the West is unable to free itself from its addiction to Middle Eastern oil, and obviously countries whose populations have been radicalized through decades of indoctrination must be dealt with slowly and carefully.
Nevertheless, I welcome Uzbekistan’s eviction as a badge of honor. Contrary to the international image as a global empire, the US will leave the country without a fight. The greatest military power on earth will voluntarily depart a strategic location because it has asked us to and we will not backtrack on its human rights record. This is the United States at its absolute best.
It is tempting to look back on American political development as a virtual certainty, that once the war was won, the rest as they say, is history (which is to say, developed exactly the way one would think). The reality however, is far different. Even after the Constitution was ratified, the 1790’s was perhaps one of the most passionate and most dangerous for the union than any other decade in American history, save perhaps the decade of the Civil War. During that time, political discourse was intensely personal and heated, and the future of the nation was far from certain.
Debate that threatened to tear America apart was everywhere.
Should the federal government assume the debts of the states, as Hamilton wanted?
Where would the capital of the nation be located?
What were the exact borders of each state, a topic never really of concern during the colonial period?
Although the Constitution protected slavery and the slave trade (at least until 1808) a petition to abolish the practice was presented by a group of Pennsylvania Quakers in 1790 which almost led to succession of several states. During those early years, some Northern state too, threatened to walk out of the new union. Perhaps most famous of these was Timothy Pickering’s attempt to form a secession movement among the New England states and New York at the start of the 19th century (this failed to materialize when Aaron Burr lost his bid to be Governor of New York). And this was all AFTER the ratification of the Constitution.
I bring this turmoil in our own history up to indicate my pessimism about Iraq’s political future. Like ourselves, Iraq’s transformation is revolutionary (in speed, that is to say), forcing them to build a democracy essentially from scratch among factions with very different interests. Today, issues in dispute include the role of Islam, the official language(s), and even the official name of the country (somewhat reminiscent of the Congressional debate over what to call the president, a debate that led to John Adam’s memorable blunder of suggesting that “your majesty” be the appropriate address).
Unlike our own Constitutional Convention, which was done behind closed doors, allowing for genuine compromise and frank debate about the nature of the new government, the Iraqi debate is in full view, and under the tight constraints of an August 15 timeline, when the Iraqi Parliament must approve the document.
I am, of course, hopeful that this whole experiment will all work out, even while remaining pessimistic about the actual possibility. After all, unlike our forefathers, we have the knowledge of hindsight and of history, of what tends to work and what tends to fail. We also have the intense international pressure bearing down upon Iraq to get its affairs in order. Nevertheless, there is every reason to fear that even without this devastating insurgency, the various ethnic groups in Iraq will simply not be able to function as a unit and, like India and Pakistan, perhaps chose to part ways, and perhaps violently.
Of course, the situation over there changes almost daily, it seems, and perhaps one day my actual expectations will conform to my hope for the country. We shall see.
Debate that threatened to tear America apart was everywhere.
Should the federal government assume the debts of the states, as Hamilton wanted?
Where would the capital of the nation be located?
What were the exact borders of each state, a topic never really of concern during the colonial period?
Although the Constitution protected slavery and the slave trade (at least until 1808) a petition to abolish the practice was presented by a group of Pennsylvania Quakers in 1790 which almost led to succession of several states. During those early years, some Northern state too, threatened to walk out of the new union. Perhaps most famous of these was Timothy Pickering’s attempt to form a secession movement among the New England states and New York at the start of the 19th century (this failed to materialize when Aaron Burr lost his bid to be Governor of New York). And this was all AFTER the ratification of the Constitution.
I bring this turmoil in our own history up to indicate my pessimism about Iraq’s political future. Like ourselves, Iraq’s transformation is revolutionary (in speed, that is to say), forcing them to build a democracy essentially from scratch among factions with very different interests. Today, issues in dispute include the role of Islam, the official language(s), and even the official name of the country (somewhat reminiscent of the Congressional debate over what to call the president, a debate that led to John Adam’s memorable blunder of suggesting that “your majesty” be the appropriate address).
Unlike our own Constitutional Convention, which was done behind closed doors, allowing for genuine compromise and frank debate about the nature of the new government, the Iraqi debate is in full view, and under the tight constraints of an August 15 timeline, when the Iraqi Parliament must approve the document.
I am, of course, hopeful that this whole experiment will all work out, even while remaining pessimistic about the actual possibility. After all, unlike our forefathers, we have the knowledge of hindsight and of history, of what tends to work and what tends to fail. We also have the intense international pressure bearing down upon Iraq to get its affairs in order. Nevertheless, there is every reason to fear that even without this devastating insurgency, the various ethnic groups in Iraq will simply not be able to function as a unit and, like India and Pakistan, perhaps chose to part ways, and perhaps violently.
Of course, the situation over there changes almost daily, it seems, and perhaps one day my actual expectations will conform to my hope for the country. We shall see.
THE NEWS:
According to the Lebanon newspaper, The Daily Star , President Mohammad Khatami of Iran announced that his country “will end a suspension of sensitive uranium ore conversion activities regardless of what proposals the European Union makes in the coming days to change its mind.”
THE BACKGROUND:
In 2003, Iran revealed its uranium enrichment program to the world, claiming that it was for peaceful purposes only and inviting the IAEA to visit. In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons programme). Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Before the matter could be brought before the Security Council for possible sanctions however, in November of 2004, Iran cut a deal with Germany, France and Britain to end its uranium enrichment program and the IAEA confirmed it. What the IAEA could not confirm was whether or not Iran was conducting covert nuclear activities.
THE PLAYERS:
Israel: According to the Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, “under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession.” Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities, but this would not be as easy as their strike on the Iraq Osirak plant in 1981. The excellent article located here gives a more complete analysis of the military dimension, and the Daily Star had a pretty compelling editorial on why it is unlikely to happen, but ultimately, Israel will be unable to act without implicating the United States (since they will have to use US/Iraq airspace to get to Iran) and the potential for an Iranian retaliation is far greater today than it was with Iraq in 1981. This is to say nothing of the logistics of such an effort, given the geographical scope of Iran’s program. Right now, Israel is simply biding its time and hoping that the US and the EU can resolve the matter before forcing their hand.
Russia and China both have energy interests in Iran, and both could veto any sanctions proposed by the Security Council. Furthermore, any attempts at imposing stiffer sanctions without the support of Russia or China could prove far less effective than with them on board.
France and Germany seem to be unworried about the potential for a nuclear Iran, even though it would effect them in the long run just as surely as it would the US. As recent history has shown, these countries seem to believe that all problems and conflicts can be revolved peacefully and diplomatically if they just wait patently and ask nicely. It truly seems like any type of punishment at all is strenuously avoided, as if a world of international law and cooperation is incompatible with actual enforcement of such laws.
The United States finds itself in a jam, due in no smart part to its decision to spend all of our international capital, and military resources on the Iraq debacle. As numerous observes have commented, an invasion of Iran is almost sure to result in chaos. The Iranian people are far more homogenous, and more nationalistic than its Iraqi neighbors and ironically enough, probably the most pro-American population in the region. Such sentiments however, would never support seeing US forces in their country, and the Iranian regime, while hated by many, is not so brutally totalitarian as to make average Iranians prefer the inevitable anarchy of their neighbor to the current political climate. No, any military action taken against Iran must be directed at eliminating the nuclear threat, NOT changing the regime and this means total war with the Islamic state should not even be in consideration. The alternative to war, of course, would be to compel Iran to disarm peacefully.
The problem is that unlike North Korea, where the US has a great deal it can offer in exchange for compliance, it is Europe that has the most to offer and the most to threaten with. According to an article signed by the Canadian external affairs minister, as well as 5 former European foreign ministers, and former Secretary of State Albright, “Europeans must prove to the Iranians that severe political and economic consequences will result if Iran does not renounce the nuclear weapons option. In the event that diplomacy fails and Iran decides not to abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Europeans should be ready for alternative courses of action, including going to the U.N. Security Council, and they should repeatedly stress their willingness to act.”
BOTTOM LINE:
Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
In 2001, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani , the number two man in Iran after Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi, called on Muslim countries “to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them “damages only.” Whether or not this was just saber-rattling, a nuclear Iran would surely create a standoff with Israel the likes of which would likely be as serious or worse than the standoff several years ago between India and Pakistan. Furthermore, the stability of Iran’s political leadership is currently in doubt, as calls for reform continues to echo throughout the country.
Finally, although the so-called “domino-theory” has largely been discredited since Vietnam, the reality is that if Iran is able to acquire nuclear weapons, thereby indefinitely postponing any American attack, it is not unfair to ask why other states would not immediately follow with their own programs, both because they can see that they will get away with it and to protect themselves from an increasingly nuclear world.
There are so many dimensions to this problem, I wanted to make this post a first attempt at simplifying them, since much of what I have written is only the tip of the iceberg, but there is one last element that should be addressed. Some might ask why we should care about Iran when Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. have nuclear weapons. The answer is simple: There is nothing we can now do about those countries having nuclear weapons, although I would prefer that they did not.
Further, there is no real risk that Israel would ever actually use such a devise for any other reason than to save its very existence. It did not use them in 1967, even though according to William Burroms and Robert Windrem in their book, Critical Mass (1994) it had them to use. It did not use them in 1973, even though the Israeli front lines were overrun, nor did it use them against Iraq in 1991 even though it had been attacked without cause. In short, I am bias in favor of democracies and will sooner trust a democracy with The Bomb than a non-democracy any day of the week. Of course perhaps the greatest argument against this “all-or-nothing” logic is the same argument people use to support gun control in the US. Even if some of the bad guys will get them anyway, it is no reason the government should encourage its unfettered spread.
Nuclear weapons, at the risk of sounding overly dramatic, have the potential to destroy the world with enough of them, and no one should be so cavalier as to advocate their spreading simply because some countries already have them. If the European community is unable to do what is necessary to secure any semblance of nonproliferation in the Middle East, than the United States cannot be blamed for taking actions necessary to ensure it.
According to the Lebanon newspaper, The Daily Star , President Mohammad Khatami of Iran announced that his country “will end a suspension of sensitive uranium ore conversion activities regardless of what proposals the European Union makes in the coming days to change its mind.”
THE BACKGROUND:
In 2003, Iran revealed its uranium enrichment program to the world, claiming that it was for peaceful purposes only and inviting the IAEA to visit. In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons programme). Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Before the matter could be brought before the Security Council for possible sanctions however, in November of 2004, Iran cut a deal with Germany, France and Britain to end its uranium enrichment program and the IAEA confirmed it. What the IAEA could not confirm was whether or not Iran was conducting covert nuclear activities.
THE PLAYERS:
Israel: According to the Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, “under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession.” Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities, but this would not be as easy as their strike on the Iraq Osirak plant in 1981. The excellent article located here gives a more complete analysis of the military dimension, and the Daily Star had a pretty compelling editorial on why it is unlikely to happen, but ultimately, Israel will be unable to act without implicating the United States (since they will have to use US/Iraq airspace to get to Iran) and the potential for an Iranian retaliation is far greater today than it was with Iraq in 1981. This is to say nothing of the logistics of such an effort, given the geographical scope of Iran’s program. Right now, Israel is simply biding its time and hoping that the US and the EU can resolve the matter before forcing their hand.
Russia and China both have energy interests in Iran, and both could veto any sanctions proposed by the Security Council. Furthermore, any attempts at imposing stiffer sanctions without the support of Russia or China could prove far less effective than with them on board.
France and Germany seem to be unworried about the potential for a nuclear Iran, even though it would effect them in the long run just as surely as it would the US. As recent history has shown, these countries seem to believe that all problems and conflicts can be revolved peacefully and diplomatically if they just wait patently and ask nicely. It truly seems like any type of punishment at all is strenuously avoided, as if a world of international law and cooperation is incompatible with actual enforcement of such laws.
The United States finds itself in a jam, due in no smart part to its decision to spend all of our international capital, and military resources on the Iraq debacle. As numerous observes have commented, an invasion of Iran is almost sure to result in chaos. The Iranian people are far more homogenous, and more nationalistic than its Iraqi neighbors and ironically enough, probably the most pro-American population in the region. Such sentiments however, would never support seeing US forces in their country, and the Iranian regime, while hated by many, is not so brutally totalitarian as to make average Iranians prefer the inevitable anarchy of their neighbor to the current political climate. No, any military action taken against Iran must be directed at eliminating the nuclear threat, NOT changing the regime and this means total war with the Islamic state should not even be in consideration. The alternative to war, of course, would be to compel Iran to disarm peacefully.
The problem is that unlike North Korea, where the US has a great deal it can offer in exchange for compliance, it is Europe that has the most to offer and the most to threaten with. According to an article signed by the Canadian external affairs minister, as well as 5 former European foreign ministers, and former Secretary of State Albright, “Europeans must prove to the Iranians that severe political and economic consequences will result if Iran does not renounce the nuclear weapons option. In the event that diplomacy fails and Iran decides not to abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Europeans should be ready for alternative courses of action, including going to the U.N. Security Council, and they should repeatedly stress their willingness to act.”
BOTTOM LINE:
Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
In 2001, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani , the number two man in Iran after Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi, called on Muslim countries “to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them “damages only.” Whether or not this was just saber-rattling, a nuclear Iran would surely create a standoff with Israel the likes of which would likely be as serious or worse than the standoff several years ago between India and Pakistan. Furthermore, the stability of Iran’s political leadership is currently in doubt, as calls for reform continues to echo throughout the country.
Finally, although the so-called “domino-theory” has largely been discredited since Vietnam, the reality is that if Iran is able to acquire nuclear weapons, thereby indefinitely postponing any American attack, it is not unfair to ask why other states would not immediately follow with their own programs, both because they can see that they will get away with it and to protect themselves from an increasingly nuclear world.
There are so many dimensions to this problem, I wanted to make this post a first attempt at simplifying them, since much of what I have written is only the tip of the iceberg, but there is one last element that should be addressed. Some might ask why we should care about Iran when Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. have nuclear weapons. The answer is simple: There is nothing we can now do about those countries having nuclear weapons, although I would prefer that they did not.
Further, there is no real risk that Israel would ever actually use such a devise for any other reason than to save its very existence. It did not use them in 1967, even though according to William Burroms and Robert Windrem in their book, Critical Mass (1994) it had them to use. It did not use them in 1973, even though the Israeli front lines were overrun, nor did it use them against Iraq in 1991 even though it had been attacked without cause. In short, I am bias in favor of democracies and will sooner trust a democracy with The Bomb than a non-democracy any day of the week. Of course perhaps the greatest argument against this “all-or-nothing” logic is the same argument people use to support gun control in the US. Even if some of the bad guys will get them anyway, it is no reason the government should encourage its unfettered spread.
Nuclear weapons, at the risk of sounding overly dramatic, have the potential to destroy the world with enough of them, and no one should be so cavalier as to advocate their spreading simply because some countries already have them. If the European community is unable to do what is necessary to secure any semblance of nonproliferation in the Middle East, than the United States cannot be blamed for taking actions necessary to ensure it.
On Thursday, The Irish Republican Army (IRA) has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign and says it will pursue exclusively peaceful means. The IRA is, of course, the terrorist organization responsible for the murder of over 1,700 people in its quest for full independence from Great Britain.
I am well aware that IRA violence has been trailing off over the past few decades, exemplified by its 1997 ceasefire and continuing in its 2001 decision to quietly start the disarmament process. Nevertheless, although it is far too early to be “crediting” any one thing or event, I would like to believe that part of their decision has been the increasing de-legitimization of terrorism throughout Europe in general, and within Britain in particular over the past 4 years. Of course, terrorism has always been met with denunciation and rejection, but the disdain for the tactic, the outrage, the sheer intolerance of it independent from any cause or issue, is a relatively new development in that area of the world from what I can observe.
I would like to believe that the IRA realized that its preferred method of resistance, while once tolerated if not accepted, has become THE faux pas of modern resistance politics.
Of course, it is possible (indeed, probable) that the IRA’s decision was entirely independent of the new international consciousness that took root after 9/11 and the US-led war on terror. However, if the IRA based its decision in some small way on the changing perception of terrorism, then it may quite possibly be the first major ideological victory in the war on terror, insomuch as the ultimate objective of the war is not just to punish individual perpetrators, but also to create an environment in which alternative forms of resistance and expression are encouraged.
This is a big step for the IRA in a decades old political battle, and the announcement should be seen as another chapter in that long saga, not as the conclusion or the pivotal climax in their history. Nevertheless, the timing is instructive and will hopefully send a message to other violent nationalist organizations throughout the region (ETA, CCC, Action Directe, Brigate Rosse). Of course, that is only what I would like to believe.
I am well aware that IRA violence has been trailing off over the past few decades, exemplified by its 1997 ceasefire and continuing in its 2001 decision to quietly start the disarmament process. Nevertheless, although it is far too early to be “crediting” any one thing or event, I would like to believe that part of their decision has been the increasing de-legitimization of terrorism throughout Europe in general, and within Britain in particular over the past 4 years. Of course, terrorism has always been met with denunciation and rejection, but the disdain for the tactic, the outrage, the sheer intolerance of it independent from any cause or issue, is a relatively new development in that area of the world from what I can observe.
I would like to believe that the IRA realized that its preferred method of resistance, while once tolerated if not accepted, has become THE faux pas of modern resistance politics.
Of course, it is possible (indeed, probable) that the IRA’s decision was entirely independent of the new international consciousness that took root after 9/11 and the US-led war on terror. However, if the IRA based its decision in some small way on the changing perception of terrorism, then it may quite possibly be the first major ideological victory in the war on terror, insomuch as the ultimate objective of the war is not just to punish individual perpetrators, but also to create an environment in which alternative forms of resistance and expression are encouraged.
This is a big step for the IRA in a decades old political battle, and the announcement should be seen as another chapter in that long saga, not as the conclusion or the pivotal climax in their history. Nevertheless, the timing is instructive and will hopefully send a message to other violent nationalist organizations throughout the region (ETA, CCC, Action Directe, Brigate Rosse). Of course, that is only what I would like to believe.
