15 December 2004
Chile Watch: A Deeper Shade of Red?
crossposted from group blog Blogo Bonito!
The eyes of the world have been turned toward Chile in recent days and months. Of course, many have taken note that General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte has been put under house arrest again, at the ripe old age of 91, though his crack legal team (which may or may not include Jonnie Cochran, of OJ Simpson fame) may get him out of trouble once more. For those who don't like Pinochet, take comfort that, no matter what happens to him in Chile's legal system, since he's such a good Catholic, he will burn in hell for eternity.
Also somewhat global in scope, or at least relevant throughout this hemisphere, is the candidacy of Chilean interior minister Jose Miguel Insulza for the position of OAS Secretary General, for which several other regional leaders are campaigning. But, alas, news like that can only be so exciting. Therefore, we turn to the true big story rocking Chile:
Has the uniform of La Roja (Chile's national soccer team) turned a deeper shade of red, or in fact, strayed so far from red as to be maroon? The daily Las Ultimas Noticias based in Santiago, brings to our attention the concerns of Julio Martinez, well-known (and well old) Chilean soccer commentator. Mr. Martinez, who notes that La Roja has been known by such a name since 1946, when they adopted red jerseys, is concerned that these maroon (or granate) jerseys represent a tragic break from a patriotic past. He is supported in his belief by a former captain of La Roja, Elias Figueroa, who states, "I think that traditions ought not change, they must be defended!" Is this symbolic of something else, perhaps another rift in Chilean society?
Not giving up on the story, Las Ultimas Noticias today presents the take of Jose Cardoch, a noted high-end fashionista in Santiago's uppity Suecia district. Mr. Cardoch does actually agree that the color is a different shade -- yet he believes strongly that it is still red, not maroon. He supports Mr. Martinez, stating "...it is good to defend patriotic symbols. Might we remember that no one defended the national shield, and now it has practically disappeared..." He goes on to define for the ignorant reader the many tones of red involved. The Chilean flag, he notes, is a nice "fire red" whereas the team's jersey has now wandered into the territory of "bull red" or "blood red."
.
To get this straight: The Chilean flag is red, blue, and white. The red represents the blood of fallen patriots. The red on the national team's jersey is no longer the color of the flag, and people are quite pissed. The flag is fire red and the jersey is blood red. But that blood red doesn't match the red of the flag, which represents blood. Interesting stuff, indeed.
Until next time, this has been Chile Watch with J Kubiak.
(all photos from the LUN articles -- thanks, LUN!)
¶ 5:03 PM 0 comments
The eyes of the world have been turned toward Chile in recent days and months. Of course, many have taken note that General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte has been put under house arrest again, at the ripe old age of 91, though his crack legal team (which may or may not include Jonnie Cochran, of OJ Simpson fame) may get him out of trouble once more. For those who don't like Pinochet, take comfort that, no matter what happens to him in Chile's legal system, since he's such a good Catholic, he will burn in hell for eternity.
Also somewhat global in scope, or at least relevant throughout this hemisphere, is the candidacy of Chilean interior minister Jose Miguel Insulza for the position of OAS Secretary General, for which several other regional leaders are campaigning. But, alas, news like that can only be so exciting. Therefore, we turn to the true big story rocking Chile:
Has the uniform of La Roja (Chile's national soccer team) turned a deeper shade of red, or in fact, strayed so far from red as to be maroon? The daily Las Ultimas Noticias based in Santiago, brings to our attention the concerns of Julio Martinez, well-known (and well old) Chilean soccer commentator. Mr. Martinez, who notes that La Roja has been known by such a name since 1946, when they adopted red jerseys, is concerned that these maroon (or granate) jerseys represent a tragic break from a patriotic past. He is supported in his belief by a former captain of La Roja, Elias Figueroa, who states, "I think that traditions ought not change, they must be defended!" Is this symbolic of something else, perhaps another rift in Chilean society?
Not giving up on the story, Las Ultimas Noticias today presents the take of Jose Cardoch, a noted high-end fashionista in Santiago's uppity Suecia district. Mr. Cardoch does actually agree that the color is a different shade -- yet he believes strongly that it is still red, not maroon. He supports Mr. Martinez, stating "...it is good to defend patriotic symbols. Might we remember that no one defended the national shield, and now it has practically disappeared..." He goes on to define for the ignorant reader the many tones of red involved. The Chilean flag, he notes, is a nice "fire red" whereas the team's jersey has now wandered into the territory of "bull red" or "blood red."
.
To get this straight: The Chilean flag is red, blue, and white. The red represents the blood of fallen patriots. The red on the national team's jersey is no longer the color of the flag, and people are quite pissed. The flag is fire red and the jersey is blood red. But that blood red doesn't match the red of the flag, which represents blood. Interesting stuff, indeed.
Until next time, this has been Chile Watch with J Kubiak.
(all photos from the LUN articles -- thanks, LUN!)
¶ 5:03 PM 0 comments
01 December 2004
Iraqi Security Forces: New Army to Fight Iran?
The United States invaded Iraq for geopolitical reasons. Turning Iraq from a hostile, unstable regime into a stable, friendly regime was the goal. Instead of maintaining the no fly zone patrols over northern and southern Iraq, and defensive positions in Kuwait, the U.S. and British armed forces would aquire well-positioned bases throughout Iraq that would allow them to project their influence into Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and, of course, Iran. This has been clear the whole time. The justification is what has been so muddled. WMD. Democracy. Hussein gassed his own people. Etc. While it might matter politically, the casus belli has no relevance to geopolitical reasoning behind the invasion.
So, what are the long-term reasons that made this repositioning of U.S. forces in the Middle East necessary? First off, Saudi Arabia has become an increasingly undesirable location for basing American forces. Kuwait has never been favored by American commanders as a military base; our forces there were there for obvious defensive reasons. The post 9/11 security concerns of the United States immediately brought Syria and Iran to the top of the watch list (if they weren't already there), and a host of other regional concerns to the middle of the list. Fused with the neoconservative dream of toppling Saddam Hussein's government, regime change in Iraq made strategic sense.
I will not spend any more time discussing the strategic shift, but I will delve further into Iraq and what it means for a potential U.S. strike, of some sort, against Iran.
Right now the U.S. military is far too streched across the globe to seriously contemplate undertaking any offensive actions that aren't deemed absolutely urgent. The American strategy in Iraq has so far been "Iraqification" and this is particularly relevant in security terms. Recruit Iraqis, train them, let them take over security responsibility for the country. Hopefully, allow U.S. forces in Iraq to retreat to isolated bases, from which they could always loom as a threat toward any anti-U.S. government that might be democratically elected in Iraq and, of course, maintain a strong operational capability for the U.S. in the region.
Iraqi forces are being trained by the American troops on the ground to be their nation's sole security force. But as we saw in Fallujah, they're also gaining experience operating IN TANDEM with U.S. forces. Though the Iraqi Army is no where near an effective fighting force right now, they will be one eventually. And they will be battle hardened and fully capable of undertaking operations in conjunction with the U.S. Army and Marines. All of their equipment and technology will be American. Their strategies will be American. They will essentially be on a level that South Korea finds itself today -- when necessary, a virtual extension of the U.S. Army.
We all know that ideally, the U.S. does not want to police the world. It wants strong, reliable allies to police the world in its best interest. So, what if Iran, currently one of the top threats to American strategic interests, is deemed a leading candidate for regime change? Would American troops sent to invade Iran from bases in Iraq be joined by Iraqi forces in such an invasion, or truly, in any sort of offensive operation? A large, effective fighting force completely loyal to the U.S. would obviously be counted on to take part in such an operation.
Therefore, I find it very likely, that IF the U.S. deems action against Iran necessary and IF the Iraqi Army is operating at a capacity that leads U.S. commanders to deem it an effective fighting force, the Iraqi Army will once again invade Iran, this time in conjunction with the Great Satan. WWIII, anyone?
Much of the hatred between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s was stoked by the fact that Iraq, like Iran a majority Shia country, was led by a minority Sunni government (Hussein's). Perhaps an Iraqi government dominated by Shia would prevent their army from invading Iran at all cost. But, does anyone really believe that anytime in the next 30 years an Iraqi government will be able to stand up to the United States (and the thousands of U.S. troops based there)? The Iraqi leaders in power will most likely have received significant U.S. help to get into power in the first place. They might even possibly see a war with Iran as a way to stoke "Iraqi" nationalism and, in doing so, create some semblance of unity among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds who have been cursed by the boundaries of colonialism into sharing a nation-state.
As the months pass, and as the Bush administration's Iraqification process painfully grinds along, we ought to keep this scenario in mind.
¶ 5:40 PM 0 comments
So, what are the long-term reasons that made this repositioning of U.S. forces in the Middle East necessary? First off, Saudi Arabia has become an increasingly undesirable location for basing American forces. Kuwait has never been favored by American commanders as a military base; our forces there were there for obvious defensive reasons. The post 9/11 security concerns of the United States immediately brought Syria and Iran to the top of the watch list (if they weren't already there), and a host of other regional concerns to the middle of the list. Fused with the neoconservative dream of toppling Saddam Hussein's government, regime change in Iraq made strategic sense.
I will not spend any more time discussing the strategic shift, but I will delve further into Iraq and what it means for a potential U.S. strike, of some sort, against Iran.
Right now the U.S. military is far too streched across the globe to seriously contemplate undertaking any offensive actions that aren't deemed absolutely urgent. The American strategy in Iraq has so far been "Iraqification" and this is particularly relevant in security terms. Recruit Iraqis, train them, let them take over security responsibility for the country. Hopefully, allow U.S. forces in Iraq to retreat to isolated bases, from which they could always loom as a threat toward any anti-U.S. government that might be democratically elected in Iraq and, of course, maintain a strong operational capability for the U.S. in the region.
Iraqi forces are being trained by the American troops on the ground to be their nation's sole security force. But as we saw in Fallujah, they're also gaining experience operating IN TANDEM with U.S. forces. Though the Iraqi Army is no where near an effective fighting force right now, they will be one eventually. And they will be battle hardened and fully capable of undertaking operations in conjunction with the U.S. Army and Marines. All of their equipment and technology will be American. Their strategies will be American. They will essentially be on a level that South Korea finds itself today -- when necessary, a virtual extension of the U.S. Army.
We all know that ideally, the U.S. does not want to police the world. It wants strong, reliable allies to police the world in its best interest. So, what if Iran, currently one of the top threats to American strategic interests, is deemed a leading candidate for regime change? Would American troops sent to invade Iran from bases in Iraq be joined by Iraqi forces in such an invasion, or truly, in any sort of offensive operation? A large, effective fighting force completely loyal to the U.S. would obviously be counted on to take part in such an operation.
Therefore, I find it very likely, that IF the U.S. deems action against Iran necessary and IF the Iraqi Army is operating at a capacity that leads U.S. commanders to deem it an effective fighting force, the Iraqi Army will once again invade Iran, this time in conjunction with the Great Satan. WWIII, anyone?
Much of the hatred between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s was stoked by the fact that Iraq, like Iran a majority Shia country, was led by a minority Sunni government (Hussein's). Perhaps an Iraqi government dominated by Shia would prevent their army from invading Iran at all cost. But, does anyone really believe that anytime in the next 30 years an Iraqi government will be able to stand up to the United States (and the thousands of U.S. troops based there)? The Iraqi leaders in power will most likely have received significant U.S. help to get into power in the first place. They might even possibly see a war with Iran as a way to stoke "Iraqi" nationalism and, in doing so, create some semblance of unity among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds who have been cursed by the boundaries of colonialism into sharing a nation-state.
As the months pass, and as the Bush administration's Iraqification process painfully grinds along, we ought to keep this scenario in mind.
¶ 5:40 PM 0 comments
