No Longer An Honest Broker

There's plenty of coverage today of Bush's endorsement for Sharon's unilateral plans. While I personally have some serious questions as to whether the US has ever been an honest broker in the Israel/Palestine conflict, the consensus among commentators is that if we were an honest broker, we aren't any more. It's really somewhat amazing that the Bush administration would do this now, deliberately provoking arab and muslim outrage immediately after their overreach in attempting to simultaneously tackle Muqtada Al-Sadr and Fallujah. It has never been more clear that ideology trumps reality with this administration. How much gasoline do they want to pour on this fire?

Meanwhile Washington Post columnist David Ignatius begs the public to see past the attractive simplicity of Bush's policies to the nuanced reality on the ground. Good luck with that, Dave. You're gonna need it.

Speaking of "on the ground", Pakistan's Daily Times makes a good observation on the use of that phrase by George Bush (this was also excerpted by CSM). Bush claimed that he was agreeing to the permanent annexation of Israeli settlements, because of the "realities on the ground". The Times points out that if that is the basis for such decisions, if the Palestinians don't want to have to accept the permanent presence of these settlements, their only choice is to change the reality on the ground, ie, attack and destroy the settlements. Writes the editorial: "If there are indeed ‘realities on the ground’, which Israel has created through use of force, and if they are to be worked into an uneven agreement, then the Palestinians can argue that the only way to an honourable peace is for them to try and change the ground realities. And that can only happen on the ground. Corollary: more violence."

The Impact of Fallujah

While the fighting in Fallujah is not likely over, the effects of the battle are already being assessed. One of the goals for the US in Iraq was to create a sense of national unity between Sunnis and Shias. Well, mission accomplished. The two factions are now united in their desire to shed American blood. Moreover, CSM reports, that the strong US response in Fallujah has changed Iraqi perceptions of the US occupation, and not for the better. There is an eye-witness account of the fighting in Fallujah running on alternet.org, and while I'm not sure how far to trust its veracity (the writer tends to have a strongly leftist perspective), it presents a powerful explanation for the Iraqi reaction against US actions there. But then, even if this account is exaggerated against the US forces, is it likely to be any different than the manner in which these events will be reported on Al-Jazeera? As of now, the US effort to pacify Fallujah is the defining event of the occupation of Iraq, and I suspect it will be some months before we fully realize the impact that it has had. If the coalition does not come up with some effective damage control for this situation it will be to our everlasting regret.

For A Better, More Honest Negative Ad Campaign

Here's some brilliant campaign season satire from The Onion. Instead of insulting and demeaning the voters by launching shallow attacks against one another, why not get right to the point and attack the voters themselves. A suggested Kerry ad says: "In the past four years, America's national debt has reached an all-time high. And who's responsible? You are. You're sitting there eating a big bowl of Fritos, watching TV, and getting fatter as the country goes to hell. You ought to be ashamed of yourself." Awesome. And how much would I give for copies of the pictured posters:

G'bye, IGC. And Good Riddance!

UN Advisor Lakhdar Brahimi lays out his proposals (in a somewhat vague way) in this press release by the UN. The transcript of the news conference makes for better reading, as it lays down point by point the advisor's "preliminary observations." The most exciting point that I see is that Brahimi says let's be done with the Chalabi-led Iraqi Governing Council once and for all, and offer in its place a "caretaker government."

The most upsetting point as I see it is the dismissive way that the concept of "sovereignty" is being addressed. It is not, as Brahimi--and Bush, for that matter--suggest. If the transition is to have any merit, then real and not just symbolic power must be given back to Iraq. But that is unlikely, says Professor Joseph Nye--the soft-power guy. He was interviewed for this article in the LA Times last week, where he said that the June 30 transition "is mostly symbolic" and amounts to little more than changing the "Coalition Provisional Authority" headed by Bremer to "the United States Embassy" in Iraq, headed up by someone else (I heard talk it might be Wolfowitz. That would be real smart.).

Crap--Spoke Too Soon

I don't know whether this bit of news will necessarily unravel everything about the peace deal, but it may very well cause the Iranian delegation to withdraw. Just when things start looking up...

Can We Now Sigh In Relief?

I have to admit that I was worried there for a little while that we were going down a rabbit hole from which we could not crawl out. But it appears that the situation in Iraq is starting to stabilize, according to this post by Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan. He reports that al-Zaman, an arabic newspaper, claims that al-Sadr and Coalition forces have struck a deal with the help of the moderate (but nationalist) Shiite group, Da'wa. The deal gives Sadr exile in Iran, at least until his trial is to begin in Najaf for the assassination charges. I will be interested to see how the US media portrays the deal.

Bringing Peace to the Middle-East

In a meeting with Israeli PM Ariel Sharon today, George Bush heartily endorsed Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, put on hold (according to Sharon) any possibility of a Palestinian state "for many years", ok'ed the permanent annexation of settlements by Israel and rejected outright the Palestinian right of return. All in a good day's work, I guess. Bush said these actions would lead to a "peaceful, democratic, viable Palestinian state." Obviously.

And the Palestinians? Ahmed Qurei remarked of the concessions, it "kills the rights of the Palestinian people" and "we cannot accept this under any circumstances". Yasser Arafat stated that the moves were "clearly the complete end of the peace process" and predicted new violence.

Here's the bonus prize as regards a peaceful resolution of the conflict: Ariel Sharon, who has proven a walking disaster where the peace process is concerned, has been in the political dumps lately, having largely failed to pacify the Palestinians, having presided over one of the worst economic downturns in Israeli history, and having recently been embroiled in a corruption scandal. However, this plan, which most critics believed needed Bush's support in order to go forward, may save his political bacon. Not only does this move completely derail the peace process, but it keeps Sharon in power to make sure it doesn't get back on track again.

Happy Birthday BWJ

Happy birthday to us! Boys Weekend Journal is one year old. We may not be ready for a Krugman-esque compilation book, but I think our experiment has proved a success. It has certainly been an entertaining diversion and a stimulating source of information and ideas for me. Here's to many years to follow.

And speaking of birthdays, I just put up a few pics from my birthday in Chicago last week. It's about 1.5mb in pics, so it may take a minute to load.

In Afghanistan

CSM is running a phenomenal column by Ryung Suh, a US Army surgeon serving in Afghanistan. The column discusses the thoughts and feelings of Mr. Suh and his companions on Afghanistan, their conflict, US tactics and motivations. Eloquent and insightful, this is the best bit of writing I have so far seen on the intervention in Afghanistan.

Elevating Trade Discussions

There's a very nice article in Foreign Policy Mag about How to Be a Free Trade Democrat. The author, former Clinton advisor Gene Sperling, critcizes the pandering vilification of trade by Democratic politcians and proposes some new approaches. I think he's pretty much on the money. The discussion should not be pro-trade vs anti-trade, but more a recognition of the impacts and ramifications of trade on the economy, and how to better deal with it. There is little to be gained by abandoning free trade, but we clearly could be doing a better job of reshaping our economy to take advantage of the opportunities of trade while not inflicting harsh penalties on those who bear the impact of the changing economy. Sperling's suggestions follow three main directives: 1) demonstrate the values of trade and how the US can use them to our advantage, 2) identify at-risk workers and industries, make efforts to shore them up against global competition, and where necessary provide a safety net to aid in the transition of workers to new jobs in new industries, and 3) recognize and promote the potential of trade to improve the economies of third world nations and reduce global poverty. These are all very good suggestions.

Paying the Price for the Dollar

CSM is running a column that dismisses the frequently cited causes for rising oil prices (conflict in the Middle East, swelling demand, etc), and pins the blame on the falling dollar values. The authors point out that while the price of oil in dollars has risen 51% in the past two years, the price has only risen 4% in euros. They further tie the fall in the dollar to ruinous government budget deficits. While the popular political ploy is to blame rising prices on the greed of OPEC nations, it clearly would be worthwhile to consider the impact of our own budget decisions.

Going To Hell In A Handbasket

It's been a tough couple weeks for the coalition in Iraq. Today saw protests, riots, and gun battles across Baghdad, Ramadi, Falluja, Najaf, al-Shuala, Nasiriya, and Basra. Most of the recent trouble is coming from Shia groups who previously had not given the coalition much difficulty. Now Al-Qaeda has released a tape in which they threaten to assassinate US leaders in Iraq. Meanwhile Donald (the other "the Donald") Rumsfeld says that things are under control and we don't need more troops in Iraq. Maybe he's not reading the same news I'm reading...

So You're Saying There's a Chance...

Boston Globe's analysis on a McCain nomination can be found here.

Corporate Tax Evaders

CNN has this article reporting that more than 60% of U.S. Corporations did not pay any federal taxes from 1996 through 2000, according to a GAO report released April 2 (the report may be accessed here). The report studied the tax liabilities of both foreign and domestic corporations presumably to determine whether foreign corporations were evading their tax liabilities. The two most interesting factoids from the report: (1) fully 94% of all corporations reported tax liabilities of less than 5% of their total income, even though the federal tax rate is 35%; (2) there is nothing new about these numbers--corporations have long taken advantage of tax loopholes to escape paying.

In doing some quick research on the topic, I came across Warren Buffett's annual letter to his shareholders. In it, he has this to say on the topic:

Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934.

Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning. Today, many large corporations – run by CEOs whose fiddle-playing talents make your Chairman look like he is all thumbs – pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35%.

In 1985, Berkshire paid $132 million in federal income taxes, and all corporations paid $61 billion. The comparable amounts in 1995 were $286 million and $157 billion respectively. And, as mentioned, we will pay about $3.3 billion for 2003, a year when all corporations paid $132 billion. We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future – it will mean we are prospering – but we also hope that the rest of Corporate America antes up along with us.

Who is this Muqtada al-Sadr fella?

It seems the Bush administration is asking itself that very question right now. On Monday, the Bush administration declared that Sadr is an "outlaw" and announced that it now plans to arrest Sadr [WP] on a warrant it has been sitting on since last fall for allegedly conspiring to assassinate a rival Shiite cleric in April 2003. On Saturday, Coalition forces arrested one of Sadr's top aides, Mustafa Yaqoubi, in connection with the same crime. That arrest--in conjunction with the Coalition's decision to shut down Sadr's newspaper [BBC]--precipitated this weekend's violence, which some say is the worst Iraq has seen after Saddam's fall.

Asia Times reported over two weeks ago that Sadr had been warning armed resistence would soon begin. CBS News interviewed Sadr in October (here's the transcript), and they reported back then that Sadr was suspected of being a chief instigator in much of the violent resistence.

The BBC reports that Sadr has a relatively small following among Shiite Muslims in Iraq (ABC News agrees), but that of course may change depending on the Coalition response to the recent uprising. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has apparently been trying to broker peace [Reuters], but Sadr has apparently rejected Sistani's plea, and has chosen instead to continue his campaign of armed resistance. He is currently holed up in one of Iraq's holiest shrines.

The Council on Foreign Relations provides an excellent background on Sadr (his dad, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq until Saddam executed him in the late 90's) and describes the events leading up to the recent Shiite unrest. Keep in mind that these events must be viewed as distinct from the goings-on in Sunni-controlled Fallujah, although one can imagine both groups are seeking to take advantage of the overall instability in Iraq.

We now find ourselves in the most delicate position we have been in since invading Iraq, and I fear that the Bush administration is not capable of handling the situation properly. Pulling out now would only create an ideal environment to cultivate terrorists and the ideology that drives them (although the support for keeping the troops in Iraq is definitely waning [Pew]). The best game plan I can think of is to throw support behind Sistani, who seems genuinely interested in promoting the peace (although that is highly unlikely, because Sistani has been very critical of the Coalition's plans for transitioning out of Iraq [FT]) and encourage a more active involvement by the UN. Moreover, it seems utterly ridiculous that Bush insists on sticking with the original June 30 transition date [Reuters], particularly when Senators in the President's own party are calling for more troops to stabilize the situation.

Spain Battles Terrorism

In a bizarre twist of events, the Spanish authorities are aggressively pursuing a group of terrorists to whom, according to most of the US press, Spain surrendered only a few weeks ago. It is believed that the ring-leaders of the 3/11 attack blew themselves up when their appartment was raided by Spanish police. Spain has already apprehended and charged 15 conspirators in the attack, and continue to pursue others. Meanwhile, the dirty French surrender-monkeys have put down their white flag long enough to arrest 13 suspects for a May 2003 bombing in Casablanca. What, you mean there's more to fighting terrorism than invading 3rd world countries?

Sharon: No More Mister Nice Guy

After apparently deciding that he has been entirely too kindly and generous with the Palestinians in previous years, Ariel Sharon said in an interview that under his unilateral plan "there is no Palestinian state", adding that he is well within his rights to kill Yassir Arafat whenever he damned well pleased. He calls his plan "tough on the Palestinians. A mortal blow." Uhh, yeah...

Brazil--The Next Member of the "Axis of Evil"?

The Washington Post breaks this story discussing Brazil's refusal to allow IAEA inspectors into uranium enrichment facilities in that country. As the WP reporter observes, Brazil's conduct "poses a conundrum for President Bush, who has called for tighter restrictions on the enrichment of uranium, even for nuclear power, as part of a new strategy to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons." The story also hints that Brazil might have some connection with A.Q. Khan's black market.

I wonder how the Bush administration will respond. If Bush and the UN treat Brazil differently than Iran and North Korea, those "rogue nations" will have good reason to argue that a double-standard exists. If Bush responds with threats, Brazil may very well brush them off, knowing that the United States is already spread too thin to do anything (and who among Americans would support a war against Brazil anyway?) and everyone knows that the U.N. has no teeth of its own.

Of course, one must not forget where Brazil stands on the war in Iraq--it is not among the coalition partners (see relatively current list here), and that factor alone puts them in the "against us" camp. There are several interesting dynamics at work and I for one am interested to see what unfolds.

Update: Apparently covert operations against Brazil have already begun--see this CNN report for more details.

Combatting Insurgencies

At least some of our military people are ready to take a long look at the unconventional tactics used by our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. From day one of the terror conflict, the administration and their political allies have heavily promoted a sentiment that making an effort to understand the motives and tactics of our opponents is somehow akin to admitting defeat or appeasing the enemy. I see it as an absolute necessity if any positive results are to come of our efforts.

The Return of Beatallica

You guys may or may not remember, back in the pre-BWJournal days, I sent an email about Beatallica, Beatles-Metallica cover band extraordinaire. Well, they're back!! Beatallica has a new self-titled release! As always, available in whole as a free download. The new release features such hit tracks as "Blackened the USSR", "Hey Dude", and, my favorite, "I Want to Choke Your Band". Kick ass.