03 April 2007
Where there's fire...
Where were you on September 7, 2006? I can't recall exactly where I was, though I assume I went to work and then watched the Mets beat the Dodgers 7-0. One thing I CAN say with absolute certainty that I was NOT involved in a firefight with Iranian troops somewhere on the Iran-Iraq border. Not all Americans can say the same:
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the facts, we simply cannot ignore the fact that American and Iranian troops exchanged fire along the Iraqi border. This is hugely significant. Iran has been, for several years, on that flame-broiled rotisserie grill that is the BushCo. Axis of Evil. Several well-documented intelligence battles have been fought between Iran and the U.S. in the past year, with the kidnapping of the 15 U.K. troops being only the latest in a series of strikes from both sides. A chain of escalation has been established and it shows no signs of abating.
As noted in the Time.com article linked to above, the past several months have seen American troops pulled off of the Iranian border in order to provide more "security" for Iraqi cities, primarily Baghdad. Though we cannot be certain as to the Disaster in Chief's next step in his brilliant Iraq strategy, we ought to assume that someday in the near future American troops will return, with whatever Iraqi soldiers they have access to, to the Iranian border. What will happen then?
Over two years ago, in this post, I suggested that a primary American goal of the occupation of Iraq was to create a proxy army (that being Iraq's) with which to fight Iran.
As a nation, Iraq's greatest struggle has been against Iran. The two countries share a massive border, and the divisions internally among the Shia seem to make any sense of a greater "Shia Alliance" between Iraqi Shia and the Iranians impossible. That doesn't mean that there won't be people in the Iraqi government who are pro-Iran. However, the combination of the Sunni and Kurds (firmly anti-Iranian) with Iraqi nationalist Shia and other anti-Iran Shia could easily help this reach critical mass. Further factor in the behind the scenes work of the Americans (clashing with Iran on all fronts, building the Iraqi military in an American model, stepping up border patrols against Iran) and you have the perfect recipe for a regional conflagration.
Obviously, the Iraqi state is not currently in a position to fight a war with another state. However, the calls from both Republicans and Democrats for the Iraqis to begin doing more seem to further us down this path. Stoking Iraqi nationalism may be the only way to create any sort of multi-ethnic consensus (and real government) in that country, and Iran is the natural target (not to mention one that is fully sanctioned by Disaster in Chief). Adding American troops to the mix just fuels the fire. A chain of escalation has already been established. Where will it end?
The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more.The article goes on to give a few details around a largely hush-hush firefight that was, in all probability, not provoked by either side. U.S. and Iraqi troops, operating in tandem, might have crossed into Iranian territory. Iranians might have crossed into Iraqi territory. People from any or all three of the nations involved might have died, and might have done so on either side of the border. The Pentagon does not wish to discuss this. The Iranians have not mentioned it. The only reports, sketchy ones at that, come from the few people who were involved. So, who cares?
(Time.com)
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the facts, we simply cannot ignore the fact that American and Iranian troops exchanged fire along the Iraqi border. This is hugely significant. Iran has been, for several years, on that flame-broiled rotisserie grill that is the BushCo. Axis of Evil. Several well-documented intelligence battles have been fought between Iran and the U.S. in the past year, with the kidnapping of the 15 U.K. troops being only the latest in a series of strikes from both sides. A chain of escalation has been established and it shows no signs of abating.
As noted in the Time.com article linked to above, the past several months have seen American troops pulled off of the Iranian border in order to provide more "security" for Iraqi cities, primarily Baghdad. Though we cannot be certain as to the Disaster in Chief's next step in his brilliant Iraq strategy, we ought to assume that someday in the near future American troops will return, with whatever Iraqi soldiers they have access to, to the Iranian border. What will happen then?
Over two years ago, in this post, I suggested that a primary American goal of the occupation of Iraq was to create a proxy army (that being Iraq's) with which to fight Iran.
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.Unfortunately, I still see this as becoming a reality. It makes too much sense. Anyone who has studied even a bit of world history knows one of the most common ways to unify a divided country is to create a common enemy. Just look at Yugoslavia, a conglomerate of multiple religions and ethnicities. Tito gave his people a dual enemy - the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. - and painted over centuries of ethnic bloodshed to form a new nation-state. As that common enemy melted away, so too did the bonds that held the state together.
As a nation, Iraq's greatest struggle has been against Iran. The two countries share a massive border, and the divisions internally among the Shia seem to make any sense of a greater "Shia Alliance" between Iraqi Shia and the Iranians impossible. That doesn't mean that there won't be people in the Iraqi government who are pro-Iran. However, the combination of the Sunni and Kurds (firmly anti-Iranian) with Iraqi nationalist Shia and other anti-Iran Shia could easily help this reach critical mass. Further factor in the behind the scenes work of the Americans (clashing with Iran on all fronts, building the Iraqi military in an American model, stepping up border patrols against Iran) and you have the perfect recipe for a regional conflagration.
Obviously, the Iraqi state is not currently in a position to fight a war with another state. However, the calls from both Republicans and Democrats for the Iraqis to begin doing more seem to further us down this path. Stoking Iraqi nationalism may be the only way to create any sort of multi-ethnic consensus (and real government) in that country, and Iran is the natural target (not to mention one that is fully sanctioned by Disaster in Chief). Adding American troops to the mix just fuels the fire. A chain of escalation has already been established. Where will it end?
Labels: disaster in chief, Iran, iraq
¶ 7:30 AM 0 comments
14 March 2007
Fox News Reports Critical Threats
by: J-lo
Almost certainly we all know by now that global warming is not a pressing issue, at least not like it is in other countries!
I can understand why global warming is not a center piece of American politics, particularly considering our continued success in Iraq, the recent capture of Osama, and political honesty; however, on the bright side we did come ahead of the Ukraine when asked if global warming is an immediate threat. According to the survey , about 46% of those Americans question regarded global warming as a critical threat, whereas only 33% in the Ukraine agreed.
What caught my eye as the diamond in the rough was that similar to other developing countries, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 61% of Iranians surveyed had strong opinions of global warming and viewed it as something urgent. Though not disclosed in the article, the survey also found that over 86% of Iranians considered global warming more of ominous than the threats of President Bush and Co. I wonder how the President is receiving that?
Maybe some teamwork will help, and force us to be a little more concerned about global warming than the Iranians or Aussies! At the least we can pretend on Earth Day.
UPDATE:
I would like to respond to a brief comment that was posted regarding the above survey. The reader stated:
As for the E.U. comment, I have no ability of addressing that since I was not called in as a consultant to conduct the survey. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs though, the survey was originally conducted in the US, India and China, and as a result several organizations in the remaining countries expressed an interest in participating. End result - the 17 countries involved and no E.U. Though disappointing that the E.U. cared not to participate I think it is important to note that the 17 countries listed represent over 55% of the world population and are some of the leaders in greenhouse gas production. For those interested in numbers I suggest looking here.
Furthermore if we look at the chart below, one can conclude that the E.U. has been taking measures to curb greenhouse gas production since 1990, whereas for the US and China there has been a jump.
Of course I do not want to blame the American people for such, as we are not at fault. What is necessary is that our government quit giving out royalties to nasty polluters and begin taxing them heavily for the amount of CO2 produced. Though unlikely, President Bush needs to provide more incentives to companies to go green and further investigate the option of capturing and storing CO2 emissions.
Almost certainly we all know by now that global warming is not a pressing issue, at least not like it is in other countries!
I can understand why global warming is not a center piece of American politics, particularly considering our continued success in Iraq, the recent capture of Osama, and political honesty; however, on the bright side we did come ahead of the Ukraine when asked if global warming is an immediate threat. According to the survey , about 46% of those Americans question regarded global warming as a critical threat, whereas only 33% in the Ukraine agreed.
What caught my eye as the diamond in the rough was that similar to other developing countries, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 61% of Iranians surveyed had strong opinions of global warming and viewed it as something urgent. Though not disclosed in the article, the survey also found that over 86% of Iranians considered global warming more of ominous than the threats of President Bush and Co. I wonder how the President is receiving that?
Maybe some teamwork will help, and force us to be a little more concerned about global warming than the Iranians or Aussies! At the least we can pretend on Earth Day.
UPDATE:
I would like to respond to a brief comment that was posted regarding the above survey. The reader stated:
uh, we also came ahead of most of the countries on that chart, including israel, not just the ukraine. plus there's no EU representation on your chart so I don't get the point.Clearly the US did come ahead of some countries, however, my point and the point of the survey was to address those who viewed global warming as a critical issue or threat. If we examine the portion of the graph that is in blue then we see that most of the countries surveyed do feel global warming is a critical threat rather than just another fly on the wall. As for the Ukraine, I think they are still concerned more about contamination and birth defects due to Chernobyl than global warming - and trust me I don't blame them!
As for the E.U. comment, I have no ability of addressing that since I was not called in as a consultant to conduct the survey. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs though, the survey was originally conducted in the US, India and China, and as a result several organizations in the remaining countries expressed an interest in participating. End result - the 17 countries involved and no E.U. Though disappointing that the E.U. cared not to participate I think it is important to note that the 17 countries listed represent over 55% of the world population and are some of the leaders in greenhouse gas production. For those interested in numbers I suggest looking here.
Furthermore if we look at the chart below, one can conclude that the E.U. has been taking measures to curb greenhouse gas production since 1990, whereas for the US and China there has been a jump.
Of course I do not want to blame the American people for such, as we are not at fault. What is necessary is that our government quit giving out royalties to nasty polluters and begin taxing them heavily for the amount of CO2 produced. Though unlikely, President Bush needs to provide more incentives to companies to go green and further investigate the option of capturing and storing CO2 emissions.
Labels: fun surveys, global warming, Iran
¶ 9:37 PM 4 comments
