The Tide is Turning

The surge is working! Vive le guerre! It may’ve taken four and a half years, half a trillion dollars, forty two hundred coalition soldiers, and up to twelve hundred thousand Iraqis, but at last, the tide of this glorious war to disarm Mr. Hussein of his weapons of mass terror, topple a benefactor of Osama Bin Laden (and liberate those Iraqis) is turning! Hallelujah, George W. was right; the neo-cons are vindicated!

Some of the reactions to the really quite dramatic downturn in the levels of violence going on in Iraq lead one to wonder at how much partisanship and ideology color people’s views of things, from all sides of the political spectrum, right, left, liberal, neo-conservative, paleo-conservative, secular progressive, log cabin republican, etc. etc. Some on the left, or maybe just those that oppose the war, whether or not they’re politically leftist or not, have been trying to deny in some ways that there has been a turn for the better. On the other side, those that favor the war have latched on to it with a ferocious mendacity, trumpeting it as their own personal vindication, that all was true and good.

It’s undeniable, the truly, insanely massive levels of violence that followed the bombing in February Oh-Six of the Al-Askari mosque haven’t tapered off, they’ve plummeted precipitously. That’s cause for joy, I don’t care if it makes the wackos, George W. among them, feel vindicated, that that full scale ethnic war that had been going for over a year has cooled down, and that fewer people are dying, is fantastic news.

The most complete statistics for any group in the war, foreign soldiers, show something very remarkable, even though Oh-Seven still turned out to be the best year for manufacturers of American body bags. From January through March, the monthly toll was consistently in the mid eighties, April through June saw the numbers jump up into the triple digits, the toll for both July and August was back down to the high eighties, it went down even more in September to 69, October and November both had a monthly toll of 40, which was almost cut in half to 24 in December. After August, the numbers really started to drop off, after staying consistently high throughout the year.

From August to October, the numbers were more than halved. That type of change seems like it might require an explanation other than the gradual improvements in security that could be expected from an influx of twenty or so thousand extra soldiers. If there was something else, what might it be, what could create such a massive down shift?

After a bloody fight with a rival Shia militia left fifty people dead, Moqtada Al-Sadr, the leader of the 60,000 strong Mahdi Army, declared a six month ceasefire at the very end of August; they would lay down their weapons and agree to not challenge either the occupation soldiers, or other militias.

Sixty thousand armed, relatively organized men would pose a formidable obstacle to even the most advanced of armies. The removal of that part of the equation definitely would have some effect, and the timing of it coincides with the precipice on the graphs. By no means can I say that that’s absolutely what happened, or was the only factor, as it almost absolutely wasn’t, but the timing of it seems to agree pretty well with the conclusion that it had a great deal to do with it. If that turns out to be the case, then the improvements have less to do with any changes in the Americans’ strategy, and more to do with domestic decisions made among the Iraqis, independent of foreign influences.

There have been restive periods in the war before, so there’s no real reason to expect the current lull to last, though the respite is a more than welcome one. George W. has made it clear that the war will keep on keeping on as long as he’s president, so the only thing I can hope for is that the killing doesn’t pick up its pace again, and that he takes advantage of the very relative quiet to shore up national reconciliation, and some type of a political solution. Knowing him, my pessimism wins out.

There have been so many turned corners before, optimism seems to be misplaced. That’s why so many on the anti war left are so quick to point out the caveats. The people who started this war have been so incredibly dishonest, from since before their nightmarish vision was actualized, through the past, at this point, nearly five full years, it’s to be expected for people to assume that even now, they’re cooking the books and misrepresenting reality.

To me, and it will look differently to people on the sides of all the other fences, it looks like the strategy of “The Surge” isn’t having as much of a positive impact as the political changes that are being brought about from within Iraq. The “successful” ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods also seems like it probably shares some of the responsibility. The less Sunnis are around Shias, the fewer the chances for religiously motivated acts of murder.

If peace, or even relative security, is all it will take for the belligerent to feel justified, that doesn’t seem like it’s as far away as it was a year ago. But for those who think that a price of five hundred billion dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and a confirmation of our enemies’ darkest beliefs about us is to steep a price for a war that never should’ve been, that outcome seems bittersweet.

The Iran NIE

People, many, many people, politicians, pundits, and the uninformed masses alike, take it for granted that a nuke is right at the top of Iran’s wish list. For many, it’s a matter of faith that no matter what the objective facts and conclusions show, the mentality of Iran’s leaders makes it inevitable that they’ll do whatever they can to get the bomb, a desire driven by visions of the apocalypse dancing in their heads, and a pathological hatred of Jews; the promise of a second instant holocaust is just too much for them Mullahs to resist!

Along comes the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, and in one fell swoop, all that common wisdom of what Persia’s been up to is seemingly thrown on its head. A flurry of activity, from the talking heads and blogging hands from all sides of those innumerable fences, immediately took off, like dust kicked up by thousands of stampeding wildebeest. For those faithful ones, those who can’t imagine the country being run by people who might not be entirely irrational, they couldn’t believe it. Bullshit, of course they’re working on nukes! This is all part of the CIA's and State Department's War on Bush (that’s one of my favorite lines, and not a bad idea in itself), it has to be, everybody knows those guys’ fingers are getting itchy just at the thought of pushing that big red button. If you don’t think that, you’ve gotta be crazier than they are!

Some of the things various people, seemingly qualified, and not, have had to say:

Justin Milauckas “Iran claims to have 3,000 working centrifuges. If they continue to operate successfully they will create enough fuel for a nuclear weapon in a year. Why, given that the president of Iran has said he wants to dominate the world, would we think Iran’s nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes? The Iranian president calls the Holocaust a “myth” and frequently calls for the destruction of Israel. If we do not act, we run the risk of placating an extremist and making the same mistake we made with Hitler, which led to World War II and the deaths of millions.”

Not to defend the guy or anything, but when people talk about the President of Iran, a Mr. Ahmadinejad, they are given quite about of latitude to mistranslate, misquote, and otherwise pull words right out of their ass and say they came from his mouth. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Heads of States, and picking apart what they say, just take a look at Mr. Bush, and Mr. Ahmadinejad does do quite a good job of offering up plenty of material, but come on, at least be honest about it! That whole thing about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the map? Try something a bit closer to him saying the Israeli government will “vanish from the page of time” a la the Soviet government. So, given everything I’ve heard that the man has said, saying he wants to rule the world seems to be out of is rhetorical style, and given the habit of people to put words in his mouth, without any type of sourcing whatsoever, that attribution screams out to me “Bullshit!”

Michael Ledeen “At this point, one really has to wonder why anyone takes these documents seriously. How can anyone in his (there was no female name on the document, nor was any woman from the IC present at the press briefing yesterday) right mind believe that the mullahs are rational? Has no one told the IC about the cult of the 12th Imam, on which this regime bases its domestic and foreign policies?”

What reason do we have to assume that they’re not rational? The “cult” of the 12^th Imam is very easily a totally irrational belief system, but then again, what religion isn’t? Twelver Shi’ism, as it’s known, is also far from being a cult. It is by far the most widespread for of Shi Islam, composing eighty percent of that group. Maybe that should be compared to the cult of the 2^nd Jesus? Our country seems to be in the thralls of people who believe very fervently in that irrational ideology, much to our detriment, but to single out Iran as particularly in the grips of a man who belongs to a cultish group is hypocritical. Why can’t we take a look in the fucking mirror once in a while? That would probably do more good than anything.

Dubya “"If the Russians are willing to do that, which I support, then the Iranians do not need to learn how to enrich," "If the Iranians accept that uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich." "I think Iran's a danger to peace. My attitude hasn't changed toward Iran. If somebody had a weapons program what's to say they couldn't start it up tomorrow?" "That (intelligence) report says to me, when you read it carefully, Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat to peace, and Iran will be a threat to peace if we don't stop their enrichment facilities."”

One of the ideas that have been floating around, especially since oil has shot up to a c-note a barrel, is that of energy independence and security. To entrust to other nations the responsibility of providing you with the fuel to keep your light bulbs glowing and your cars pumping out noxious fumes isn’t the brightest thing you can do. Some of the campaign promises you hear are about how that particular candidate will work to have America energy independent by 2123, or some other date in the pretty distant future. Why should we expect Iran to be content to rely on fuel shipments from Russia, shipments that could stop at any time, to keep its power plants going? It’s as dumb for them as it is for us to rely on Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and other foreign countries for our fuel.

Another point that Mr. President has made, is that Iran was, is, and will be a threat to peace. How come? Take a look at our countries’ respective track records. From 1979, when the Mullahs took over, Iran has been involved in one war, in the eighties between them and Iraq. We, the USA, supported Iraq and Saddam Hussein when Iraq attacked Iran, in a long, brutal war that killed 1,000,000 Iranians, tens of thousands from chemical weapons that we, the USA and other Western countries sold to Mr. Hussein.

On the other hand, during the eighties, the United States backed brutal death squads throughout Central America, to stave off leftist political gains there. In 1983 the United States invaded the country of Grenada, in 1986 the US bombed Libya, in 1988 we shot down Iran Air Flight 655 killing all 290 on board, in 1989 we invaded Panama, following the end of Operation Desert Storm and continuing until the Iraq War, American backed sanctions led to the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi children, with periodic bombings just to keep them on edge, from 1994 to 95 up to 20,000 American soldiers were deployed to Haiti, in 1995 the US and NATO bomb Bosnia, in 1998 the US bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, 1999 saw the US and NATO bombing Yugoslavia, we tried to have the hugely popular president of Venezuela overthrown in 2002, in 2003 we invaded Iraq and liked it so much we never left, and in 2004 we helped kick the democratically elected president of Haiti out of his own country.

Yet Iran is the country that is a threat to peace.

Brett Stephens "Equally disingenuous is the NIE's assessment that Iran's purported decision to halt its weapons program is an indication that "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach"--an interesting statement, given that Iran's quest for "peaceful" nuclear energy makes no economic sense.”

Allahpundit “A simple question: Why would Iran, which floats on an ocean of oil, choose to invest in a nuclear energy program instead of upgrading its refining capacity so that it doesn’t have to import gasoline?”

Joe Klein “Even after the new intelligence assessment, Iran's uranium-enrichment program remains troubling to the international community because enrichment is considered the most difficult part of building a nuclear bomb. Iran claims it is enriching the uranium for a peaceful nuclear-power program, but--given its ocean of oil--most international observers don't believe it.”

Stuff like that shows up quite a lot, why on earth would Iran need anything else with it sitting on that ocean of oil and all? It’s an argument that could also be put sort of like this: what would make Iran possibly want to develop and diversify into alternate energy sources, when it could burn away this ocean of money that it’s floating on, you know, burn it at cost instead of selling it abroad and enriching its economy with potentially hundreds billions of dollars, quadrillions of rials, why the fuck wouldn’t they want to burn this immense fortune that a happenstance of geography has given them? Quite right you are, Mr. Stephens, “Iran's quest for "peaceful" nuclear energy makes no economic sense.” Trying to take advantage of something that goes for a hundred bucks a barrel (that’s 933,000 rials) on the open international market makes absolutely no economic sense!

So for them to want to be able to take advantage of this resource, selling it to bring in some extra cash, while still being able to meet their domestic energy needs independently, it doesn’t make an sense, does it? They must be itching to get their hands on their very own nuke. Yeah, that’s it.

Why shouldn’t Iran be able to enrich uranium anyways? The way the world runs, the only reason that there isn’t an anarchic free-for-all like in the good ol’ days, is that international interactions are governed by laws, treaties, and the vast majority of countries imbue those laws with authority, and respect the rights that they give to other nations, and fulfill their obligations under them. Under this system, Iran has the right, as does any nation, to engage in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which only four countries in the world haven’t ratified or have pulled out of (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea), states that “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” That gives Iran the inalienable right to produce fuel for its civilian nuclear power plants, just as surely as the first amendment of the US Constitution gives me the right to shout “Theater!” in a crowded fire.

What reasons are there to assume that Iran isn’t telling the truth about the nature of its nukes? Even if the National Intelligence Estimate was a ploy by the intelligence community to try to make up for screwing the pooch about Iraq by playing it safe with Iran, it meshes perfectly with what the International Atomic Energy Association has found. On 21 August, 2007, they released a report titled Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues. The most pertinent parts are to be found in Section IV- General Understandings; to quote it at length, it goes:

“1. These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

2. The Agency agreed to provide Iran with all remaining questions according to the above work plan. This means that after receiving the questions, no other questions are left. Iran will provide the Agency with the required clarifications and information.

3. The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.”

So that gives us a report from the United States, hardly the biggest friend of Persia, saying Iran doesn’t have a program to develop nuclear weapons, and an independent international regulatory organization saying that there is zero evidence that Iran’s intentions are anything but peaceful, and furthermore, there aren’t any unresolved issues or ambiguities surrounding it. What else do we have to go on to believe that that’s not the case? Is it really just because they give us a funny feeling? It seems to me to be an emotional response more than anything; we don’t like them so they can’t be trusted so if they so they’re not trying to get an A-bomb they must be in an all out sprint to get, fuck the facts and fuck objectivity.