I feel compelled to throw a wet blanket over some of the triumphalism I see in the blogosphere over Saddam Hussein's execution. I don't think it's a cause for Americans to be celebrating. I say this not because I'm ambivalent about the death penalty, but because we did not invade Iraq in order to kill Saddam Hussein.

We invaded Iraq to bring democracy to that part of the world, because doing so will in theory make us safer here at home. Not only have we not yet succeeded in that purpose, but our ultimate success (as well as the very theory our plan is based upon) is very much in doubt right now. No matter how much Saddam may have deserved what he got, I'd just rather save my celebrating for the day our troops return home victorious.

Posted by: annika at 12:53 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Imagine what this nation would be like if the media replaced all their stories about starlets behaving badly with stories about women like Sgt. Kristi J. Artigue.

“I’ve always been a risk taker,” said Artigue, 23, now a medic with the 141st Medical Company [Connecticut Army National Guard].

On Nov. 10, Artigue called upon the skills learned during her six years of National Guard service -- including a recent deployment to Iraq -- to help save the life of a man who may have drowned.

. . .

“Tom,” a middle-aged man, had suffered a seizure and fallen into a section of the West River. Unable to swim, he struggled to remain above the surface with the help of several civilians and two West Haven police officers. The chain was trying to hang on until the local fire department rescue crew could arrive . . .

Then the life-defining event happened.

“He let loose,” said Artigue, “and went under for one or two seconds. Long enough to know he wasn’t going to be coming up again. And he was moving out farther from the shore toward the center of the river.”

At that point, Artigue let her training take over. The nursing student and Iraq War veteran jumped into the freezing water and swam out about ten feet to where Tom was struggling for air.

“It was too cold to talk,” said Artigue, “but I grabbed his vest and tried to keep him above the water. He grabbed a hold of me and started to pull me down with him, but I was able to drag him by his vest to shore.”

. . . On a cold November day, coming out of cold, moving water, communication was difficult, but Artigue was able to keep Tom talking and conscious until emergency crews arrived.

A future trauma nurse, Artigue plans to use her experiences in the Guard and in Iraq to save as many lives as possible.

“Since Iraq,” she said, “I’ve learned to adapt and overcome. I saw what was happening and I had no option but to get involved because of not only my medical training, but also because of my personal responsibility.

“I will always appreciate my military experience. It’s something I would never give up,” said Artigue.

Posted by: annika at 09:06 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm working through the recommendations now. I've approached the report with an open mind, since it's obvious that the Bush/Rumsfeld plan is not working. However, several descriptive phrases about the Iraq Study Group come to mind as I read. They are as follows:

naïve
not helpful
wishful thinking
too many carrots, no stick

I wish I could say differently. It's almost like a bunch of guys sitting around a table on Saturday night, playing Risk, or Dungeons & Dragons. The panel members imagine a world in which all the players would act rationally if only they talked to each other. With their "New Diplomatic Offensive," they've conjured a mythological universe that sounds nice, but doesn't actually exist.

The Iraq Study Group's major error was their assumption that parties with a strong negotiation position will trade away strength for promises by a weaker adversary. The kind of negotiation that the ISG envisions could only work if the parties shared mutual interests and goals, which is absolutely not the case in Iraq or in the broader Middle East.

The best example of the ISG's naïveté involves Iran:

Our limited contacts with IranÂ’s government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq. They attribute this reluctance to their belief that the United States seeks regime change in Iran.

Nevertheless, as one of IraqÂ’s neighbors Iran should be asked to assume its responsibility to participate in the Support Group. An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world IranÂ’s rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation. Further, IranÂ’s refusal to cooperate on this matter would diminish its prospects of engaging with the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks.

And how does the Iraq Study Group suggest that we persuade Iran to do us that big favor, which the ISG admits they are unlikely to want to do? The report is short on suggestions. But the panelists have no trouble coming up with nice things that Iran can do for us, assuming they can be magically persuaded to ignore their strong negotiating position and act against their own interest.

• Iran should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq.

• Iran should make clear its support for the territorial integrity of Iraq as a unified state, as well as its respect for the sovereignty of Iraq and its government.

• Iran can use its influence, especially over Shia groups in Iraq, to encourage national reconciliation.

• Iran can also, in the right circumstances, help in the economic reconstruction of Iraq.

And of course, my criticism doesn't even reach the fact that Iranian interests are also motivated by a dangerous religious fanaticism that makes their cooperation with the West even more unlikely.

I've seen many objections to the Iraq Study Group's report from several other critics. I can't address that commentary, since I haven't read the whole report. But if the rest of the ISG's recommendations are as unwise as their "New Diplomatic Offensive," and their failure to understand the Iranian problem, I think the panel might have done more harm than good.

Update: And in the "he said what I said, only better..." department, here's a must read digest of the ISG report, by Robert Tracinski. An excerpt:

We should negotiate with Iran and Syria to convince them to help stabilize Iraq, but then James Baker angrily denies that this would mean caving in and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program, and he angrily denies that it would mean caving in and allowing Syria to re-conquer Lebanon. In other words, he wants to ask Iran and Syria to help us in Iraq--while ruling out the only concessions that might induce them to do so. At the same time, the ISG also rules out any serious military threat that would force Iran and Syria to abandon their current strategy.

This is the pattern of the whole report: to stipulate the achievement of a result, while denying the actual means that might achieve that result.

When you desire a result without enacting the means for achieving it, that's called a "fantasy"which is ironic, considering that James Baker is a dean of the "realist" school of foreign policy.

h/t Chris Roach.

Technorati tag: iraq study group

Posted by: annika at 08:50 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 897 words, total size 6 kb.

John Bolton was one of the best UN Ambassadors we've had. But a minority of Senators decided he was too tough for the job. So he's out.

Apparently, being tough is not an asset for a UN Ambassador. I might have thought otherwise, but we live in a different era now. John Bolton would have fit in better during some earlier time in our nation's history when standing up for his country's interests was something we wanted our ambassadors to do.

No longer. The key requirement for a UN Ambassador these days is likeability. He or she should be well thought of by the international diplomatic corps. And to be well thought of, one needs to make concessions. Well known anti-American Kofi Annan said so himself:

"I think Ambassador Bolton did the job he was expected to do," Annan said, before launching on a discourse about how important it is for ambassadors to "understand that to get concessions, they have to make concessions."

The question now is, with the above requirements in mind, who should replace Bolton?

The White House gave no immediate signs of its plans for a successor, but people who have been mentioned both inside and outside the administration as possible successors include the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad; Philip Zelikow, the State Department counselor; Paula Dobriansky, under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs; and [Senator Lincoln] Chafee.

I have been known to favor celebrities for positions at the UN. Since celebrities have been in the vanguard on the issue of U.S. global likeability, what could be more obvious than that we need a celebrity at the UN Ambassadorship? Almost without exception, celebrities possess the requisite qualities of low intelligence and a desperate desire to be well thought of.

Therefore, I suggest Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake as co-ambassadors to the United Nations. The fact that Justin was once in a boy band should be a big advantage in dealing with the hyper-sensitive international diplomatic corps. What could be less threatening than a boy band member? Plus JT is about as dumb as half a stump, so if you team him up with Cameron Diaz, you get an intellectual total that equals about... half a stump. They would make perfect ambassadors under the newer, friendlier, criteria.

Posted by: annika at 04:35 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.