A recent survey of more than 7,000 Iraqis in different parts of the country, conducted by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and the private Iraqi research group, the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies, shows that Iraqis increasingly identify themselves as "Iraqis above all else."
Between April 2006 and May 2007, this perception, according to the survey's conductors, grew by more than half, with almost three-quarters of Baghdad residents viewing themselves in terms of their national identity.
Mansoor Moaddel, an University of Michigan professor and one of the collaborators in the survey, stated that this growth in national identity in Baghdad compares favorably with other Middle Eastern capitals where religious affiliations and other local relationships appear to have stronger appeal.
The survey also showed that fewer than 1 in 5 Iraqis felt that having an Islamic government is the most important goal.
The results of this survey are important, because a strong Iraqi national identity is a likely one key element to overcoming sectarian conflict and other legacies of the Saddam dictatorship, as well as ending the US military occupation and its effects.
The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Something's Gotta Give: Will the World Unite Against the US?
Only an alliance of civilizations could oppose the United States’ empire: the Russian civilization whose orbit includes the Community of Independent States (CIS); the Chinese, the Indian, the Islamic and the Latin American civilizations. A "reflection" by Fidel Castro...
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Saturday, August 4, 2007
OBAMA ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE
Thomas Riggins
The Friday New York Times has a story, "Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive" by Michael Luo (NYT 8/3/07).
It seems Obama is getting flack for saying he doesn't think using nuclear weapons against al-Qaeda is a good idea. "His remarks about removing nuclear weapons as an option in the region drew fresh attacks from Democratic rivals who had already questioned his foreign policy experience."
In reality his critics are the ones whose experience should be questioned. The US and every other country should have a no first use or first strike policy as the use of nuclear weapons would be in itself an unthinkable crime against humanity.
Obama should be congratulated for stating that we would not commit a crime against humanity. His critics, by leaving the use of crimes against humanity as an option, show they are completely unworthy to be leaders representing the American people.
Sen. Clinton, when asked if she agreed with Obama, said, "I'm not going to answer hypotheticals." This is a ridiculous response and a typical dodge for politicians lacking the courage of their convictions. A hypothetical is any question with an "if". Sen. Clinton, "IF the US is attacked would you take appropriate actions?" "I'm not going to answer hypotheticals!"
Sen. Clinton also said, "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." We are not talking about pea shooters here. Any person who can't make the blanket statement that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons is not fit to be president.
Sen. Dodd (yes he's running too, but far back in the pack I think), also criticized Obama for making "unwise categorical statements about military options [i.e., use of nuclear weapons]." He too it seems agrees that presidents should keep open the option of committing crimes against humanity as a tool of US policy.
At least there are two people who shouldn't be running. The article didn't mention what other candidates thought. On this issue, at any rate, Sen. Obama has proven himself to be wiser than his critics.
The Friday New York Times has a story, "Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive" by Michael Luo (NYT 8/3/07).
It seems Obama is getting flack for saying he doesn't think using nuclear weapons against al-Qaeda is a good idea. "His remarks about removing nuclear weapons as an option in the region drew fresh attacks from Democratic rivals who had already questioned his foreign policy experience."
In reality his critics are the ones whose experience should be questioned. The US and every other country should have a no first use or first strike policy as the use of nuclear weapons would be in itself an unthinkable crime against humanity.
Obama should be congratulated for stating that we would not commit a crime against humanity. His critics, by leaving the use of crimes against humanity as an option, show they are completely unworthy to be leaders representing the American people.
Sen. Clinton, when asked if she agreed with Obama, said, "I'm not going to answer hypotheticals." This is a ridiculous response and a typical dodge for politicians lacking the courage of their convictions. A hypothetical is any question with an "if". Sen. Clinton, "IF the US is attacked would you take appropriate actions?" "I'm not going to answer hypotheticals!"
Sen. Clinton also said, "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." We are not talking about pea shooters here. Any person who can't make the blanket statement that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons is not fit to be president.
Sen. Dodd (yes he's running too, but far back in the pack I think), also criticized Obama for making "unwise categorical statements about military options [i.e., use of nuclear weapons]." He too it seems agrees that presidents should keep open the option of committing crimes against humanity as a tool of US policy.
At least there are two people who shouldn't be running. The article didn't mention what other candidates thought. On this issue, at any rate, Sen. Obama has proven himself to be wiser than his critics.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Its Always Giuliani time at Fox News
Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and current "front-runner" for the Republican presidential nomination (which, given the political trends of the present, is like having the most tickets in a lottery where the grand prize is a free trip on the Titanic)released his health care plan a few days ago. It calls for tax incentives to help uninsured people purchase their own health insurance.
The plan itself doesn't deserve to be dignified with any serious response. Systems of national health care, called socialized medicine, were established in major developed countries in the decades after the Second World War, except in the U.S, where such a system, advocated by Harry Truman in the 1948 presidential election, was never enacted, although a limited system of socialized medicine for senior citizens who reached the age of 65 and poor people who qualified under a means test was established by the Lyndon Johnson administration as part of its Great Society program in 1965. A comprehensive national health care system, call it national health insurance, socialized medicine, single payer health care, anything you wish, is today at least half a century overdue in the U.S., if not longer.
Giuliani's "plan," should insult the intelligence of anyone with a sixth grade education. Tax breaks for low income people to buy inadequate insurance coverage for health care that is a necessity may make "sense" to supply side economists who cheered on Reagan-Bush tax cuts for the corporations and the rich to achieve quality economic growth (which of course it didn't do) but to no one else, except perhaps to Roger Ailes, the long time right-wing Republican, jovial cynic (I say that from here him interviewed over the years) and Rupert
Murdoch employee. The New York Times had a lengthy story about the Giuliani Ailes connections over the decades, Giuliani's support while he was Mayor for Fox News when its major cable rival tried to keep it out of New York (or what capitalists call the New York market) and Giuliani's high profile on Fox News Network, which apparently is where right-wing Republican couch potatoes go to escape the "liberal media" (those who believe that there is such a thing as the "liberal media might be better off on a psychiatrist's couch rather than watching Fox).
Recently I wrote a piece for the PA blog on comparing Rupert Murdoch the media Robber Baron with his fellow Australian immigrant, Harry Bridges, the genuinely heroic trade union leader. I used the classic
film, Citizen Kane to structure my analysis. The Giuliani-Ailes "relationship" got me to thinking about another classic American anti-fascist film of that era, Frank Capra's Meet John Doe. In that film, a ruthless press Lord turns a failed baseball player-hobo into a national hero, the leader of a national movement, in order to use him to seize political power for himself. However the invented hero turns against his invented when he finds out what is happening and sides with the people against the sinister forces of potential fascist tyranny. "The people. Take that, Norton, the people," a newsman says to the media mogul at the film's end when his plan is in ruins.
Rudolph Giuliani was also largely invented by the media. He trampled on the civil liberties of political protesters, street vendors and minority people for eight years as he unleashed the police and "protected" the commercial and wealthy residential districts of Manhattan, being given credit for a declining crime rate that covered more than it really told about city life. He showed up on September 11, 2001 (unlike President Bush, who was not seen or heard from for a number of hours) and acted in effect as a corporate manager assessing damages. He did nothing substantive or really positive to merit the image of heroic leader that was quickly manufactured for him by mass media, but he got, if only be default, since there was no one else around.
A victory for any Republican will be a victory for the long-term interests the Murdoch media empire. A victory for Giuliani, considered the "liberal" Republican candidate because he has the sense not to proclaim his undying opposition to women's reproductive rights aka abortion, will be a special victory for immediate interests of the Murdoch media empire.
The election of a progressive President is the one thing that Murdoch and the class interests he represents can't stomach (we should remember he supported Jimmy Carter against Teddy Kennedy in 1980, Reagan
against Carter and all comers, and various other candidates in the Republican party and the Democratic party who would suit and advance his corporate and class interests).
We can't expect Giuliani or any Republican or any non-progressive Democrat to turn on Murdoch (there are accounts that he is being cozy with Hilary Clinton as he was with her Center-Right husband) but we
can and must work to elect a federal government that will begin to deal with both media monopoly and right-wing media domination, both of which are most dramatically represented by Murdoch and Fox. Who
knows? Some president may say to Rupe in the future, "the people. Take that, Murdoch. The people." That would be a "happy ending" to the sordid history of Murdoch in America.
--Norman Markowitz
Iran: Economic Bankruptcy and Escalating Poverty
Struggle against the destructive economic policies of the regime is an inseparable part of the struggle against the dominant dictatorial regime and the struggle to bring about freedom and social justice to the country.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Iraq: National Unity, Democracy, and Ending the Occupation
The party expressed its unlimited confidence in our Iraqi people and their ability to continue their march to defeat terrorism and sectarianism, eliminate the legacy of dictatorship and occupation, restore full national sovereignty, lay the foundations for a state based on institutions, justice an law, and build a unified federal democratic Iraq.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Video: "God have mercy on Iraq..."
"...I challenge Bush to come out here and ride with me. I'll do another fifteen months..."
Thursday, August 2, 2007
British Troop Withdrawal from Iraq Appears Set for October
Britain is getting out, so why aren't we? This is the big question that Bush wants to avoid. And in his recent visit visit to Washington, new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown appeared willing to help him avoid it as long as possible – at least until October. But Brown did tell Bush he would not delay British troop withdrawal.
British papers are reporting, that despite Brown's proclamations of unity with the Bush administration, Brown will announce the withdrawal of Britain's 5,500 troops from Iraq this October. The 5,500 British troops in Iraq represents a significant reduction by more than half of the highest level of the British contingent. In other words, Britain has been steadily reducing its presence in Iraq.
Brown faces a serious revolt from voters, who have already handed Brown's Labor Party significant electoral losses in the past few local and national elections, if he fails to make the right decision to withdraw troops. Public opinion in Britain, like the US, has turned sharply against the war.
The British withdrawal poses a serious problem for the Bush administration. It defies the claim that a timeline for withdrawal will "embolden the enemy." And because British withdrawal isn't based on "progress" in its area of operation – sectarian violence, political disunity, the lack of a coherent authority, and economic and infrastructural problems persist – it suggests that the US needs to pursue other means than military force and occupation to assist in solving Iraq's internal problems.
Will Bush denounce the British as emboldening the enemy? Will he claim they have caused greater sectarian violence and civil war? Nope. He'll save that for the vast majority of Americans and congressional Democrats who want to do the same thing Britain is doing.
The point is: if British troops get to leave, why not ours?
Pro-Bush Republicans have insisted on waiting for a September report from General Petraeus about "progress" in Iraq before committing to changing course in the war. Some Democrats even appear to have fallen for this political sleight of hand for delaying bringing the troops home. Just wait and let progress happen, they repeat over and over again. Wait until September. Next, we'll hear wait until November. Wait. Wait. Wait.
But we've been waiting for more than 4 years and more than 3,600 deaths. Military occupation has failed to help the US and the Iraqi government reach even limited goals for "progress" in Iraq. Sectarian violence has not, and cannot be eliminated by military force. Security problems in Iraq have been exacerbated by the presents of US troops, as ironic as that may sound.
It is clear that security in Iraq is an international political issue that the US, adopting its current posture, cannot resolve alone, if at all. Hostile postures toward Syria and Iran without serious high-level talks, the presence of a huge US military and civilian force (and unpopular domestic policies imposed on Iraq by the US), contradictory laissez-faire attitudes toward Saudi and Turkish interference in Iraq all combine to create a situation that makes the status quo seem to be the best thing to do.
In other words, hostility toward some of the regional players and the lack of real diplomacy work to enforce Bush's stay-the-course Iraq policy. Doing nothing seriously new appears to be a Bush tactic. If Bush were serious about bringing the war to an end, he would be serious about good-faith diplomacy and find out what it will take to end outside interference (including the US) and allow Iraq to develop its own sense of national cohesion and identity again. Only on this basis will Iraq move out of its ongoing civil war.
Bush isn't interested in this. and the result is an irresponsible and criminal waste of human life, treasure, and resources – our own and Iraq's. Thus, it is up to Congress to continue pressure for a change. But in addition to lining up a plethora of troop withdrawal plans, Congress should refocus the debate away from the jiggery-pokery of "progress in Iraq" and back onto responsible ending of the occupation through multilateral diplomacy, alternative measures for security, real reconstruction, and the struggle against terrorism.
British papers are reporting, that despite Brown's proclamations of unity with the Bush administration, Brown will announce the withdrawal of Britain's 5,500 troops from Iraq this October. The 5,500 British troops in Iraq represents a significant reduction by more than half of the highest level of the British contingent. In other words, Britain has been steadily reducing its presence in Iraq.
Brown faces a serious revolt from voters, who have already handed Brown's Labor Party significant electoral losses in the past few local and national elections, if he fails to make the right decision to withdraw troops. Public opinion in Britain, like the US, has turned sharply against the war.
The British withdrawal poses a serious problem for the Bush administration. It defies the claim that a timeline for withdrawal will "embolden the enemy." And because British withdrawal isn't based on "progress" in its area of operation – sectarian violence, political disunity, the lack of a coherent authority, and economic and infrastructural problems persist – it suggests that the US needs to pursue other means than military force and occupation to assist in solving Iraq's internal problems.
Will Bush denounce the British as emboldening the enemy? Will he claim they have caused greater sectarian violence and civil war? Nope. He'll save that for the vast majority of Americans and congressional Democrats who want to do the same thing Britain is doing.
The point is: if British troops get to leave, why not ours?
Pro-Bush Republicans have insisted on waiting for a September report from General Petraeus about "progress" in Iraq before committing to changing course in the war. Some Democrats even appear to have fallen for this political sleight of hand for delaying bringing the troops home. Just wait and let progress happen, they repeat over and over again. Wait until September. Next, we'll hear wait until November. Wait. Wait. Wait.
But we've been waiting for more than 4 years and more than 3,600 deaths. Military occupation has failed to help the US and the Iraqi government reach even limited goals for "progress" in Iraq. Sectarian violence has not, and cannot be eliminated by military force. Security problems in Iraq have been exacerbated by the presents of US troops, as ironic as that may sound.
It is clear that security in Iraq is an international political issue that the US, adopting its current posture, cannot resolve alone, if at all. Hostile postures toward Syria and Iran without serious high-level talks, the presence of a huge US military and civilian force (and unpopular domestic policies imposed on Iraq by the US), contradictory laissez-faire attitudes toward Saudi and Turkish interference in Iraq all combine to create a situation that makes the status quo seem to be the best thing to do.
In other words, hostility toward some of the regional players and the lack of real diplomacy work to enforce Bush's stay-the-course Iraq policy. Doing nothing seriously new appears to be a Bush tactic. If Bush were serious about bringing the war to an end, he would be serious about good-faith diplomacy and find out what it will take to end outside interference (including the US) and allow Iraq to develop its own sense of national cohesion and identity again. Only on this basis will Iraq move out of its ongoing civil war.
Bush isn't interested in this. and the result is an irresponsible and criminal waste of human life, treasure, and resources – our own and Iraq's. Thus, it is up to Congress to continue pressure for a change. But in addition to lining up a plethora of troop withdrawal plans, Congress should refocus the debate away from the jiggery-pokery of "progress in Iraq" and back onto responsible ending of the occupation through multilateral diplomacy, alternative measures for security, real reconstruction, and the struggle against terrorism.
Personal observations of China
China has approximately 1.3 billion people or around 1/6th of the world's population living in one nation. The economy is growing at 10 percent per annum and the urbanization of China continues.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)