Holy Day Execution: Stupidity or Spite

While few shed tears for the killing of Saddam Hussein - a ruthless dictator who was responsible for the death of scores of innocents - the wider symbolism of his execution on 10, Thul Hijjah, 1427 A. H. (Dec. 30, 2006) is sending blood boiling in the Arab and Moslem world.

Saddam was executed at 6am on the morning of Eid El-Adha, which is the holiest day of the Islamic calendar. It is a day for celebration and love. It is a day for sacrifice and giving. It is the day which represents the sacrifice that Abraham was willing to make of his son for God. It is a day in which all executions are stayed and amnesties are granted - because human beings are not to suffer or represent sacrifice on such a day!

Instead of his death being viewed as an act of justice for the many crimes he committed, the mother of all ironies is that executing Saddam on this day is placing him in the minds of many as the ultimate sacrificial lamb to the conquering Crusaders. It also flies in the face of the significance of the day itself as a day of forgiving, love and giving.

Does anyone think at all before such decisions are made????

Executing Saddam on this day out of the 365 options offered in a year is simply stupid, crude and insensitive to the sensibilities and morality of Moslems - at least one fifth of the world's population. If you add to that Europeans and others who view execution as barbaric, one can understand the disgust that is palpable the world over.

The gleeful Shias and other few on the streets of Iraq, Iran and Dearborn, Michigan have been assuaged by this act of mob vengeance, but the wider implications are anything but cathartic. (And while they celebrate - we should ask ourselves if such vengeance is worth the death of an additional near 1 million innocent Iraqis as a result of the US invasion and occupation! And as the families of the needlessly killed seek their own vengeance - the cycle of violence in the region has fuel for generations to come.)

I can't help but scratch my head in bewilderment. Why choose this day? If the US government was trying to offend the Moslem world - again - it couldn't have chosen a better way. If the Shia government of Iraq was trying to spit in the eye of the Sunni, it couldn't have chosen a better way. I can only think that even they are not that stupid. It must have been intentional and pure spite. Unfortunately, that is the way most people in the Arab and Moslem world are seeing it as well.... And that is hardly a way to quell the anger in the region - let alone diffuse the dangers of terrorism and ethnic violence.

Who benefits from this?

Let's Blame It On the Iraqis

Now that the year is almost over, the mood is weary ... weary of a Congress that has failed in its constitutional obligations, weary of an administration seemingly answerable to no one including reason, weary of the extremist fringes whether in the US or abroad, weary of increasing terrorist fears, and ... weary of Iraq - especially the cost in life, limb and treasure here and there. We look to 2007 to see changes on all of these and other fronts. Americans spoke up in November and now we expect change.

Yet, what does change mean? Does it mean that we shrug our shoulders and dust off our hands and pretend like the mess out there is in fact out there and not in here? Do we look ahead and pretend that the past will not eventually come back to bite us?

Or does change mean that we hold those who created this mess accountable and make sure they do everything they can to "fix it"?

Iraq is a good case in point, since it appears to be the fulcrum around which all our weariness revolves - Congress' abdication of its responsibilities, the Administration's sheer audacity and stubbornness, loss of life and treasure here and abroad, and a revitalization of the terrorist threat.

The new mantra coming out of Washington is that Iraqis have to step up to the plate and take charge of their country. Very few would actually disagree with that. However, what is especially jarring is when that sentiment is followed by claims that the US has done all it can to give the Iraqis the hope of a brighter future! Since we have done all that we can and the Iraqis, instead of being grateful and holding on to this golden opportunity (imagine that?), want instead to kill each other, well, what can the US do? Iraq is Iraq's problem and they have to fix it, right?

That logic is not only deficient; it is immoral.

Iraq was broken by the United States of America. That is not to say that it was in good shape before March 2003, but it is to say that Iraq is much worse off today then before the US, unprovoked and based on false pretenses, invaded the country - dismantled its institutions, allowed wanton plundering, dispersed its army, and allowed century old rivalries just enough oxygen to awaken smoldering embers.

It is also to say that if the objective was, as it is now claimed, that Saddam's repressive regime had to go so as to allow the march of liberty... well, there were and are better ways to achieve that then military invasion and ill-sighted occupation. Whether we like it or not, democracy does not come at the end of a soldiers gun. But that is not the reason the US invaded the country. At least, that is not what this Administration claimed at the time. Accordingly, there was no plan for what was not the objective to begin with!

That was then and this is now. Today, Iraq is broken. Hundreds of people are dying every day. Thousands of people are fleeing their homes and becoming refugees whether in Iraq or neighboring countries. Life for the average Iraqi, especially Arab Sunni or Shia, is pure hell between the lack of jobs and basic amenities to constant fear of death squads, insurgents and terrorists.

Ironically, Iran has achieved, despite itself and through no effort of its own, what it had failed to achieve for hundreds of years since before and during the days of the Ottoman Empire - control over the Shia-dominated lands of southern Iraq. What is also truly regrettable and as bumper-stickeresque as it sounds - the US went to war in Iraq and Iran won.

I am reminded of the wise words, despite his misplaced notion of loyalty, of Colin Powell - "If you break it, you own it." Yet, when you hear TV talking heads, senators, congressmen, and read the endless op-eds, the message is the same. The US has no option but to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

But there are other options... and not the one the President is talking about. Iraq does not need more US troops in Baghdad, as his military commanders on the ground are telling him. Today, the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, is in Baghdad talking to the top brass, and already we are hearing that General John Abizaid is going to resign. For years now we have heard the President declare that the military commanders are the ones who call the shots on the ground. Well, either that was not true either, or it was the military commanders' fault all along. Secretary Gates is on a mission to change - change those who would dissent from Bush.

Is that the change we need? Blame it on the Iraqis, blame it on the military commanders, blame it on Iran, blame it on Syria, blame it on the terrorists, blame it on Saddam loyalists, blame it on them ...... How about blaming it on the leaders and policymakers who broke Iraq? How about blaming it on US?

Yet, blame is meaningless and a wasted energy if it does not yield redemption. Redemption will come only when we fix Iraq - and not by sending more troops to possible death. Redemption will come when we realize that we won't succeed if we continue to go it alone - or by continuing our sledgehammer foreign policy.

The Iraq Study Group report gave us important options. The bottom line is that we have to reach out - to all Iraqis, Iraq's neighbors, the region and the world. That means we have to work in partnership - not run away or fight away.

That is what I will be reflecting on as we enter 2007... because I too am weary.

See you in January, and may this be a happy and new year for all.

Senator Tim Johnson: Self-Interested Compassion

Is it just me or is there something really wrong with our collective interest in the health of Senator Tim Johnson? What I mean by wrong is that the reasons behind our concern are wrong. When Senator Johnson was taken to hospital for brain surgery after "stroke-like symptoms", the media went into a frenzy, not because the man was gravely ill and perhaps fighting for his life, but because his death could upset the new power calculus in Congress.

The Democrats may lose their control over the senate if Senator Johnson were to die or become incapacitated. Should this happen, the Republican governor of South Dakota would surely appoint a republican replacement to fill the seat which would place the senate at 50/50 with Vice President Cheney as tie-breaker. In other words, the senate would be under Republican control.

We should care about Senator Johnson as a fellow human being and as an elected leader. Yet, the irony is that while the reason underlying our concern is less-than charitable or compassionate, it is understandable. Other than Buddhists who genuinely seek disinterested altruism, the situation here is clearly one where charity begins and stays at home. Whether democrat or republican, the nervous hand-wringing over this man's health is anything but disinterested compassion - it is purely self-interested concern.

It is in this human story that politics shows its inhuman face. And, while I understand that such is the nature of the beast, I am finding it unpalatable. I find it sad - and not merely with disinterested compassion for him, but rather self-interested concern for us.

Kofi Annan Bids Adieu With Reflections on US Hegemony

In his farewell speech after 10 years as United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan imparted 5 lessons to the world, in general, and the US, in particular. He chose as the backdrop for this event the Harry S. Truman Library in Missouri because, in his words:

I think it's especially fitting that I do that here in the house that honors the legacy of Harry S Truman. If FDR was the architect of the United Nations, President Truman was the master-builder, and the faithful champion of the Organization in its first years, when it had to face quite different problems from the ones FDR had expected. Truman's name will for ever be associated with the memory of far-sighted American leadership in a great global endeavor. And you will see that every one of my five lessons brings me to the conclusion that such leadership is no less sorely needed now than it was sixty years ago.

In other words, while the US scuttles away all the goodwill it commanded in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, there is an imperative to recall the reasons why the US stood as the champion for world peace after WWII and heralded the United Nations as the future bastion of discourse and diplomacy to achieve that peace. And as the Bush Administration considers the Iraq Study Group Report and ponders how to get out of the mess it has created for itself and the Iraqi people, it may be wise to heed the 5 lessons Annan spelt out:

1. My first lesson is that, in today's world, the security of every one of us is linked to that of everyone else.

2. My second lesson is that we are not only all responsible for each other's security. We are also , in some measure, responsible for each other's welfare . Global solidarity is both necessary and possible.

3. My third lesson is that both security and development ultimately depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law.

4. My fourth lesson – closely related to the last one – is that governments must be accountable for their actions in the international arena, as well as in the domestic one.

5. My fifth and final lesson derives inescapably from those other four. We can only do all these things by working together through a multilateral system, and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed to us by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.

These five lessons can be summed up as five principles, which I believe are essential for the future conduct of international relations : collective responsibility, global solidarity, the rule of law, mutual accountability, and multilateralism .

In his closing words, Annan implored the White House and all Americans to hold on to its legacy and its committment to leadership.

You Americans did so much, in the last century, to build an effective multilateral system, with the United Nations at its heart. Do you need it less today, and does it need you less, than 60 years ago?

Surely not. More than ever today Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functioning global system through which the world's peoples can face global challenges together. And in order to function, the system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition.

Typical of the tin ears of this Administration, the only comment came from the State Department's Spokesman, Sean McCormack, at his daily press briefing:

As I said, are we going to see eye to eye on every single issue with Secretary Generals of the United Nations? No, probably not. With respect to Mr. Annan's remarks, he, of course, is entitled to his opinion. ....And in terms of how the United States has sought to protect itself and act in its own national interest and, by the way, also try to help protect and defend freedom and liberty and those countries that subscribe to that political viewpoint, of course, we have made difficult decisions and we don't expect that everybody has agreed with those decisions and people are entitled to their opinions...."

Yes, those were actually McCormack's words, as unbelievable as they sound.

Yet, I see a glimmer of hope that Annan's words will not be in vain. He was introduced at the Truman Library today by none other than Republican Senator Chuck Hagel! (See my previous posts on Hagel)

The message coming from all directions is that the US go-it-alone sledgehammer foreign policy is counterproductive; it has left us and the world worse off. And that is the lesson we can all learn from the last 6 years....

Iraq Study Group Report

Here is the long awaited report. I haven't read it all yet, but here are some excerpts. Will have a follow-up post with comments! Initial reaction - nothing new, may even be old, but at least serious.

-- "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved."

-- "Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another. If they are effectively implemented, and if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and America's credibility, interests and values will be protected."

--- "If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al-Qaida could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized."

-- "During the past nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe that it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence the outcome in Iraq and the region."

--- "The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors. Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own."

--- "Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran's nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

"The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians - those who accept Israel's right to exist - and Syria.

"As the United States develops its approach toward Iraq and the Middle East, the United States should provide additional political, economic and military support for Afghanistan, including resources that might become available as combat forces are moved out of Iraq."

--- "The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al-Qaida in Iraq."

Bush Meets Leader of Badr Death Brigade But Not Elected Hamas Leader

With Rumsfield gone and Bolton soon to follow, there are still a few rotten apples yet to go. Nevertheless, Bush seems to have heard America's roar and may even be rediscovering the art of diplomacy. So, we can give him points for that.

Today he meets with leading Iraqi Shiite cleric, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Although he holds no official position in the government, his party represents the largest bloc in parliament and a member of his party is one of Iraq's two vice-presidents. Hakim talks a a good talk, painting himself as an elder statesman with a democratic vision for Iraq. Bush, in an attempt to be even-handed, is even meeting next month with a Sunni leader, the other vice-president, Tariq Al-Hashimi.

However, Hakim's history tells a different story.

Did I mention that his group also includes one of the most violent death squads in Iraq, the Badr Brigade (which later grew and morphed into the Badr Corps)? And did I also mention that this brigade was trained in (and some say equipped by) Iran and he is closely allied with Iran where he lived in exile while Saddam was in power? You might also be interested to know that his Badr Corps is responsible for some of the most heinous sectarian violence, the running of torture chambers, and murders of innocents, especially Sunnis. To make matters worse, members of Badr have now moved into key positions of the police causing Iraqis not only to fear the lawless but also the representatives of the law as well!

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Hakim had this to say:
In more than an hour of conversation at his Baghdad home and office, Hakim denied accusations that the Shiite-led government's security forces -- with alleged involvement by his party's armed wing -- have operated torture centers and death squads targeting Sunni Arabs. He also renewed his call to merge half of Iraq's 18 provinces into a federal region in the oil-rich, heavily Shiite south, and he played down Iran's interests in Iraq, saying that the Shiite theocracy to the east wants only what the United States claims to want: a stable Iraq.

Despite all of this, this meeting would, in fact, be something to commend Bush for. After all, this is realpolitik in action. However, it is also the height of hypocrisy, not to mention inconsistent and counterproductive foreign policy. The US policy is to not meet with groups who propagate non-state violence, even if they are elected by their people in a fair and democratic process, or so was the excuse when the US decided to refuse to deal with elected Hamas leaders in Palestine.

In the case of Iraq, it is OK to meet with those who have blood on their hands because it is prudent if it holds any prospect of reducing the violence. Yet, somehow that logic doesn't translate to the Palestinians. Why?

On the other hand, we reward the Iraqis for going to the polls and electing leaders, even if some of them are associated with violent groups who wantonly kill others. Yet, in Palestine that message doesn't apply. In fact, we penalize an entire people and halt all aid to a starving population for expressing themselves in a democratic process at the polls. Why? Because we don't like how they voted? Does that mean that we like the way they voted in Iraq but not Palestine? Or, does it mean that we don't care how they voted in Iraq just as long as they voted?

So, what does the average Palestinian learn from that? Does he then surmise that democracy is what the US wants for everyone else, but not for him?

We can go on and on, but I think you can see where this can go.....