Shlonkom Bakazay?

Foreign Policy

Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation

Executing Minors

Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice

Pop Culture

Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it

Self-image

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

God

Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone

Stem Cell Research

Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone

Use of Force

Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort

Bush's War in Iraq

Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster

Press

Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press

Free Speech

Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion

Individuals

Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity

Cooperation

Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together

Tolerance

Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live

Conscience

Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection

Origins

Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years ago, maybe more

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government

Fear

Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Liberals: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that respect for our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is eminently moral

Women

Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be

Marriage

Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other

via dKos

In what could be a matter of real confrontation, China & Russia have asked America to set a timetable to withdraw from Central Asia. Brzenzski's Grand Chessboard is now charged with electricity.

CS reports,

A six-nation security bloc comprised of China, Russia, and four former Soviet states has urged the US-led coalition in Afghanistan to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from member states, reports BBC. Meeting in the Kazakh capital of Astana, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - which includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China, and Russia - issued a joint statement saying the active military phase of the Afghan operation was coming to an end and calling on the US-led coalition to agree to a deadline for ending the temporary use of bases and air space in member countries.

We shall see what comes of this in the following days and weeks. Make no mistake, this is heavy-hitting geopolitics.

Billmon makes an important point about the information wars and how extremists help one another make a bad situation worse.

It looks like the Cheney administration is finally getting serious about losing the war in Iraq -- it's sending in the radio talk show hosts:

A contingent of conservatives talk radio hosts is headed to Iraq this month on a mission to report "the truth" about the war: American troops are winning, despite headlines to the contrary.

The "Truth Tour" has been pulled together by the conservative Web cast radio group Rightalk.com and Move America Forward, a non-profit conservative group backed by a Republican-linked public relations firm in California.

If the Iraqi insurgents are smart -- and most of them are fucking geniuses compared to your average right-wing talk show host -- they'll spread the word: Leave these particular dumb ass infidels alone. (Not that any of them are likely to poke their porcine snouts outside the green zone without a brigade-strength escort. But you never know where the odd mortar round is going to land.)

Why? Because collectively, these guys are an enormously valuable asset to America's enemies -- both because of their utterly brainless support for Al Qaeda's strategy of turning the war against terrorism into a crusade against Islam, and because they've done such a splendid job of setting up the American people to be demoralized and disillusioned by the truth.

Obfuscating the truth for more delusional visions of victory won't be helpful. And I'm sure extremists in the region will welcome the wing nuts to town with open arms. Another sick twist...

I was just speaking with my cousin who recently fled Iraq because of the terrible instability and he makes two points about why it was dangerous for him specifically. 1) Because he worked for a foreign company. "It put a stamp on our forehead." 2) Because he's Christian. "We're targeted by the fanatics." Then he went on to describe the violence committed by Iraqis in more detail, saying that 90 percent of the violence is perpitrated by ruthless gangs and other unsavory asswipes, while the other 10% honestly fight the occupation. That was his abstract estimate. He says Iraq is by and large lawless because of how these gangs operate. And now Iraq is flooded with them. I'm sure I'll have more from him in the future, but I just wanted to put a first impression of his thoughts up here now.

All I can say is that it seems from my cousin's estimate that the criminals are operating at an endemic level. He later on went to say, "maybe we can all go back and live in Iraq in 10 or 20 years." Other comments I recall include, "There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Because the tunnel is so long and dark." and "We would like to see hope, but there is none." and "Each day is worse than the day before."

When you hear this, it gets very depressing. In the end he said, "We still have hope. We lived like this during the war and we live like this now. We always have hope."

Sure he contradicts what he says about there being no hope, but I think that shows a lot about the general Iraqi feeling these days. Teetering between hope and hopelessness. It's certainly how I've felt, though now I have less hope than ever before...exactly because each day the situation gets worse.

About the 90/10 split...of course it's hard to say what this estimate really is, but there must be truth to this feeling he has. Still, what can be done about it when it benefits them to keep things as unstable as possible? Why would these bastards mind if some foreign jihadi went and blew up a bunch of innocent Iraqis or if American troops made more grave errors by putting more innocent Iraqis in graves. It only helps these criminal thugs. Of course, these are the Iraqis involved that we spoke of...my cousin also was saying that each and every day the amount of foreign "single-wash brainwashed fanatics" (as he calls them) and other fighters coming into Iraq is more and more. This was his feeling at least. And, it sure does look like that from afar. If this was America's strategy for fighting the so-called war on terror...to make Iraq into a training center similar as how Afghanistan was when America was sponsoring Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, well doesn't that sound the alarm bell that such a place only makes the world less safe?

Just because the new sponsors are rich Saudis, doesn't make the situation any different today. In fact, I'd argue it is worse because we know less and less about how these sort of terror groups operate now. Of course, in the case of Afghanistan in the 80s, America created those groups to fight the Soviet Union. So now, essentially, America has helped created another incubator for terrorism...and that was a part of the strategy?

They couldn't tie Iraq and Al Qaeda together then, but they sure can now. Imagine, then...that was a goal of the Cheney administration. How sick and twisted can a foreign policy get?

I want to be completely clear about my position regarding American troops in Iraq. There absolutely needs to be a timetable for withdrawal. The notion the insurgents need some sort of reason to "wait it out" is absurd. Let's be serious, the insurgency doesn't need a reason to be encouraged to fight. They are only getting stronger and more sophisticated as time passes, while American forces continue to kill and alienate innocent Iraqis. These Iraqis are the lot made to suffer most. They are stuck between the insurgency and the occupation. This favors the insurgency in the long run of course. And I believe more and more honest Iraqis are dreaming to be rid of the occupation. And that spells a nightmare for the American wish to have a strategic foothold in the region. In short, it will be impossible for America to have bases in Iraq and for Iraqis to live in peace simultaneously. bases/occupation = chaos - Simple as that. Anyway, at this rate, I believe in one to two years such a timetable will be presented. Now it doesn't seem to be in the cards for whatever reason, but believe me it will.

Is this a solution? Of course not. I'm describing not prescribing. If somebody tells you they have a solution, they'd be lying through their teeth. Let's just say we know what is not a solution. It is not a solution to continue the occupation indefinitely. It is not a solution to not hold people accountable and operate above international law. It is not a solution for people to treat Iraqis like they don't matter in all this. Iraq is for Iraqis, not for America. I'm sick of how people don't ask Iraqis living inside Iraq how they feel about being occupied, how they feel about being humiliated daily, how they feel about being treated like strangers in their own land, how they feel about not being able to go for a walk down the street, how they feel about not having drinking water, how they feel about not having petrol for their cars while having the world's second largest reserves of the stuff, how they feel about being the real victim in all this chaos.

Who gives anybody the right to not include Iraqis in the reconstruction process...to be suspicious of them getting involved in such projects just by the virtue that they are Iraqis? I mean, isn't that completely insane? Exiles going back to help is wonderful, but when they are the only ones running the ship from an isolated cocoon, the ship is bound to go down.

Exiles should be serving a support role, not as the Emperor's servants. When the Iraqi that has lived through all the wars and sanctions is put under the thumb of exiles coming from their plush lives (and able to leave whenever they like, mind you) from Australia, Europe, and N. America...it just sets up the entire situation for animosity to incubate.

Sure, Iraqis need to learn about certain things...and exiles will offer that help. But by no means should they patronize the Iraqi who has lived and suffered through the past hell to be presented with a new and even worse hell that they don't even have ownership of now. Talk about adding insult to injury. If the "injury" was a gaping flesh wound...it's more like adding urine, spit, and a little doo doo to that injury...rubbing it all in, then adding a little salt and terpintine to the wound. And then saying, "you don't live here, it's my house now, get out and pay for the doo doo too."

Whether or not that makes sense, I could hardly care less. I'm so exhausted as today felt over 40 degrees until the sun went down. My body aches and I'd like to shower, but I can't because my towels are washing.

That's all for now. Blaaa.

You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston is violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways. -Tom Delay

Billmon has written an excellent post entitled Democracy or Empire?

Rove needs to be visited by the FBI Ferry and locked up.

Screw democrats and let them give birth to gremlins for being so weak in the knees on a woman's right to choose.

The current Iraqi "government" learned a lot from Saddam and then they upgraded their torture chambers to "torture camps" thanks to America's help at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.

Remember to get your war on every once and a while.

And Tom Tomorrow cuts through the crap as usual. Check this one:

When you thought the Cheney administration couldn't get more hostile:

The Bush administration has decided to retain control over the principal computers which control internet traffic in a move likely to prompt global opposition, it was claimed yesterday.

The US had pledged to turn control of the 13 computers known as root servers - which inform web browsers and email programs how to direct internet traffic - over to a private, international body.

But on Thursday the US reversed its position, announcing that it will maintain control of the computers because of growing security threats and the increased reliance on the internet for global communications. A Japanese government official yesterday criticised the move, claiming it will lend momentum to the debate about who controls the information flow online.

Can anybody say, unilateral take-over of the internet? I mean, they didn't even go to the UN for this one.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks."

George W. Bush -- September 17, 2003

To the extend that George Bush had retained the slightest shred of dignity through the whole ugly Iraq imbroglio, it was found in his refusal to fully embrace the biggest of the Big Lies told by his aides: The claim that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had played a role in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
...

The point here is not to defend Hussein. The point is to recognize reality: The invasion and occupation of Iraq did not control the spread of terrorist activity in the Middle East. It handed the terrorists new opportunities for recruitment, and it gave them new territory in which to operate. Until the president acknowledges these fundamental realities -- and his own responsibility for making things worse -- it will be impossible to undo the damage.

George Bush set out to deceive to the American people Tuesday. That was morally wrong, and tactically foolish.

But George Bush also deceived himself, by engaging in the fantasy that some new spin will allow him to avoid taking responsibility for making the world a more dangerous place. Ultimately, that is the bigger, and far more dangerous lie.

Complete piece here.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from the puppets and their masters.

President Jalal Talabani denied that Iraq had a role in US talks with insurgent leaders, insisting they were strictly a US affair despite Washington's claims it was acting only as a facilitator.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirmed Sunday that US officials had held talks with insurgent groups, but insisted Washington's role was limited to that of broker for the Iraqi government.

"The Iraqis have a sovereign government," Rumsfeld said. "They will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time to time."

Please visit here. Encourage the Iraqi voice.

"To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban - a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends."

(Righhhhht...it won't be a safe haven. Instead, it'll be dangerous for everyone. A breeding (as in, training) ground and recruitment device for terrorists. That'll show em. In other words, we will turn Iraq into Afghanistan--circa the 1980s--when the Mujahadeen you were funding (ie, Osama Bin Laden) with billions of dollars were fighting the Soviets. Yes, indeed. America funded, thus created Osama Bin Laden.) (That's me speaking...now, back to the article.)

Consider. Three years ago, when the Bush administration started ramping up the case for invading Iraq, Afghanistan had recently been liberated from both the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorists who had attacked the US. There was still a vast amount to be done to make Afghanistan a safe place. Iraq, meanwhile, was a hideous dictatorship under Saddam Hussein. But, as the United States' own September 11 commission subsequently concluded, Saddam's regime had no connection with the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not then a recruiting sergeant or training ground for jihadist terrorists. Now it is. The US-led invasion, and Washington's grievous mishandling of the subsequent occupation, have made it so. General Wesley Clark puts it plainly: "We are creating enemies." And the president observes: our great achievement will be to prevent Iraq becoming another Taliban-style, al-Qaida-harbouring Afghanistan! This is like a man who shoots himself in the foot and then says: "We must prevent it turning gangrenous, then you'll understand why I was right to shoot myself in the foot."

If I wasn't surprised or so wet and rageless last night, this is what I would have said. For Iraqis, what Bush said is like peeing in the wind or trying to make water wetter. I wish to see a glimmer of hope in something regarding Iraq these days, but the feeling in my gut alarms me. I regret agreeing with this. What is the solution? Especially since my friends and family in Iraq that might read this. I've always had this feeling, like...what right is it of mine to tell others of my truest outrage while I'm not inside Iraq toiling away trying to make a better future in more concrete ways. I simply don't see any sweetness and light in the situation. Of course, I haven't held myself back too much...but I have held my worst fears close to me because of my concerns in offending family and friends who have to suffer daily because of this illegal war and occupation. How will the insurgency end if each time foolish people (ie, US troops & jihadis) continue to kill innocent people? How will you win if you make new enemies each day through direct or indirect humiliating practices? And when the general opinion in Iraq is that troops will not be held to account for anything and that an Iraqi's life is worth less than an American's, well...why would anybody want to submit to such auto-somatic subalternism? Come on people...I'm sure Iraqis inside Iraq are going to be like..."I'm not worth what you're worth and please continue occupying my country indefinitely." What utter BS. If the Cheney administration does not have the presence of mind to accept some blame, correct it in an honest manner, and try to move forward without committing more terrible mistakes...the violence will continue indefinitely.

I don't know what else to say anymore. I just hope and pray my family and friends stay safe in Iraq during this difficult time. The only way we will get through it is to believe in and care for each other. Of course, saying there is no solution in sight is not the nicest thing to do. There is always hope, though. Counting on American troops for the hope of safety, though, is not an option. They are only making things worse, while building the psychological facade in the minds of many from left to right that the only way forward is for the occupation to continue indefinitely. When, in fact, the solution is nowhere in sight.

The best we may do now is to create the conditions for a solution to be possible. Even doing this will be difficult. But to go in front of the world and say such a thing (see top of post) proves that the Cheney administration couldn't care less about the Iraqi people or American sons and daughters that are dying and risking their lives for such folly.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has no right to speak about the case of three jailed activists whose cause she took up during a recent visit here, Saudi Interior Minister Nayef bin Abdel Aziz said.

"It's an internal matter, nobody has the right to speak about it," the minister was quoted as saying, by the official SPA news agency, in response to questions on Rice's comments on the three reformers.

Doesn't that poor fool of a took know that the reason why he's got any power in S.A. is because of America. I mean, please, have a little more respect for your masters.

So, I was seriously thinking about slowing down the blogging because of a number of new things going on in my life and some minor inconveniences with regard to blogspot. Instead, I'm going to add some new features. I was doing the podcast thing for a little while. What a kingdom of fun that was. I may pick that back up again when I get some new ideas. Unfortunately, I don't have my records or sound gear any where near me. So, while I find an alternative, I'm going to put some songs up for your enjoyment. Anyway, yada yada...

I was walking around in the rain today. It's hot outside. Really humid too. Listening to T Rex and Tears for Fears in my ears' phones. Lots of people...so many many people. Shocked. Ran some erands. Tried to imagine what my life will be like in even a few weeks. So much is new. I'm trying to manage my excitement, my nervousness. What will happen next?

Came home in the pouring rain. My clothes were soaked. I mean soaked. My new converses were too. Oh well, can't wear those pants tomorrow. They'll be too wet. Got dry and ate my dinner while I checked my email. Simplicity is kind to my outlook on things. But I must get out of the house and be alone in the anonymity of the metropolis. Staying inside is not an option. Rain or shine. Heat or humidity. There's a time and place for everything.

Started listening to music while I got some things in order. First Abdel Halim Hafez...bit'lemooni lehy...bit'lemooni lehy! Then Adult...lost love....contagious...yeaaaa.

That's what I'm talkin' bout. I saw Adult live my junior year of Uni. I was front and center and the place was packed. My my my...what a show. I went to school in a town filled with indie rock kids that didn't dance. At a concert they would pretty much fold their arms and nod their heads at the most. It was truly annoying. Maybe they thought dancing was for freaks, er I dunno. But certainly it was because they were lame as hell.

Anyhow, everybody danced that night. I was completely amazed. What the eff...incredible. Front to back. There wasn't a body in the house that wasn't shaking.

Good memories.

If you want to hear Lost Love or Contagious, you'll probably have to use iTunes. It's in the more efficient .m4a format. I'm not sure if there's another player that plays this format. (I use iTunes.) When I put up audio, it will stay for a week or two for your sampling purposes. Then I'll put different songs up as they become relevant to my mind's wandering. Here's a review or two for Adult's album Resuscitation where you'll find these tracks. Go buy it here. Check out Insound...it's one of the flyest labels out there.

Oh, also...somebody gave a speech. But there was nothing in it that was important. Complete Bullshit.

From time to time an article comes along in a respected journal like Harper's Magazine (the oldest periodical publication in the U.S.), which is not digital yet deserves to be. I've had the time recently to type an excerpt of one such article written by Karl E. Meyer called Forty Years in the Sand: What happened the last time freedom marched on Iraq. It was published in the June 2005 issue of Harper's. I only wish people could learn from history. This is especially prescient in the case of Iraq. Enjoy.

Update: Found entire version online.

In March 1917, Anglo-Indian forces finally captured Baghdad, a triumph greeted with energetic huzzahs in London but that posed a fresh quandary. How was Mesopotamia to be governed? Baghdad's conqueror, Major Genereal Stanley Maude, cabled an answer: "Local conditions do not permit of employing in responsible positions any but British officers competent to deal with Military authorities and with poeple of the country. Before any truly Arab facade can be applied to edifice it seems essential that foundation of law and order should be well and truly laid."

This understanding of the local politicsf was disputed by the Foreign Office's Sire Mark Sykes, who cautioned the cabinet that "if you work from India you have all the old traditions of black and white, and you can not run the Arabs on black and white lines." And so from London came the now famous proclamation, composed by Sykes, affirming that "Our armies have not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators." Additionally, he invited the people of occupied Mesopotamia to share in shaping the new government and urged the rapid withdrawal of Anglo-Indian administrators.

In reality, the British were uncertain about how much power they were willing to accord to Mesopotamia's diverse peoples. For all his rhetorical devotion to Arab rights, the same Mark Sykes had also negotiated the pact with FFrance divvyfing Ottoman lands like chattel in a divorce suit. When Londonf found few competent replacements for British administrators in Mesopotamia it decided simply to retain them at their posts. As the American historian David Fromkinff remarks in A Peace to End All Peace, General Maude was placed in the difficult position of preaching self-rule while discouraging its practice: "The compromise formula at which the British had arrived might have been expressly designedf to arouse dissatisfaction and unrest: Havingf volunteered what sounded like a pledge of independencefffffffff to an area that had not asked for it, the military and civil authorities of the occupying power then proceeded to withhold it."

Gertrude Bell, resettled in a river-bank bungalow, was given the grand if ambiguous title of oriental secretary to Major Percy Cox, who was made civil commissioner of all Mesopotamia. When Cox was summoned to London and Teheran for extended consultation, in April 1918, Wilson was named acting civil commissioner with the rank of lieutenant colonel. "I can scarcely realize that I am at present responsible to Government for the administration and political frelations of the whole of this vast area," the marveling colonel reported to his family.

Three days before the November 11 armistice, Britain and France released a bold and surprising joint declaration promising peoples "long oppressed by the Turks" fa free choice of future governments. Referring to Syria and Iraq, the declaration vowed that the Allies had "no other care" but to support the governments that oppressed peoples "shall have adopted of their free will."

The declaration was an obvious response to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic Fourteen Points, proclaimed earlier that year. The twelfth point affirmed that all nationalities under Turkish rule were owed "an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development." One might deride the Fourteen Points (France's Premier Georges Clemenceau complained that God was content with Ten), but with Wilson about to make a triumphant entry into Allied capitals, they were impossible to ignore. The subsequent perceived failure of Britain and France to honor this politically expedient pledge sowed an enduring sense of betrayel.

In Baghdad, Colonel Wilson conveyed a different sense of betrayal to Sir Arthur Hirtzel, the permanent under-secretary of the India Office in London:

The Declaration incolves us here on the spot in diplomatic insincerities which we have hitherto successfully avoided and places a potent weapon in the hands of those least fitted to control a nation's destinies.... The average Arab, as opposed to the handful of amateur politicians in Baghdad, sees the future as one of fair dealing and material and moral progress under the aegis of Great Britain.... Our best course is to declare Mesopotamia to be a British Protectorate under which all races and classes will be given forthwith the maximum degree of liberty and self-rule compatible with good and safe government.

Bell for the moment agreed with much of this. She supported WIlson's campaign to unite dissimilar Ottoman provinces, and also believed the Franco-British declaration ill-advised. Yet she did not think Iraq should become a protectorate, and was dismayed by the ignorance of senior policymakers, who shrugged off as inconsequential the rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Bell's understanding of the situation in Iraq was shaped to a large degree by Colonel T.E. Lawrence, a friend from her days at the Arab Bureau in Cairo. Known to Bell as "Imp" or "Dear Boy" and to the world as Lawrence of Arabia, he began his wartime service with a bizarre mission in 1916 to free Andlo-Indian troops beseiged by Turkish forces north of Basra by offering one million poinds to the Turksih commander to let them go. Even though Lawrences's misssion failed, it became routine British practice to offfer cash "subsidies" to Arab chieftains. The essential cynicism of this approach was confirmed when long-classified official records became public in the 1960s. Here is how Lawrence himself justified supporting Hussein and his son, the Emir Faisal:

[Hussein's] activity seems beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the break-up of the Islamic "bloc" and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states he would set up to succeed the Turks would be as harmless to ourselves as Turkey was before she became a tool in German hands. The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion, and yet always ready to combine against an outside force.

This statement is difficult to reconcile with Lawrence fame as a gallant champion of the Arabs. In Seven Pillars of Wisdom, he tried to square an ethical circle that confronts intelligence officers in the field: "I could see that if we wond the war the promises to the Arabs were dead paper. Had I been an honourable adviser, I would have sent my men home, and not let them risk their lives for such stuff." Yet Arab help was necessary to a "cheap and speedy" British victory in the East. Better to win and betray than lose.

After The War to End Wars, the victors convened in Paris from January until July 1919 to negotiate a peace settlement. The Big Three--Woodrow WIlson, British Prime MInister David Lloyd George, and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau--conferred regularly to discuss peace terms, address the claims of stateless peoples, and parcel the spoils of defeated empires. Yet the distracted potentates and their aides would frequently forget what they had already decided, or promised.

In the territorial horse-trading, Wilson won his campaign to bind the three unlike provinces of Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul into the single new nation of Iraq. The British had favored a state for Kurdistan, T.E. Lawrence sought separate emirates for Basra and Baghdad, the Emire Faisal wanted a federation of Syria and Iraq, and the French tried to attach the oil-rich Mosul to Syria.

As the Paris conference ended, only the outlines of the new Middle East had been agreed upon. Having initially talked of an independent state for Armenians and Kurds, the Americans began to pull back from active involvement in the region. The Notion of a Jewish national home in Palestine was still so nebulous that even the Emir Faisal, nudged by Lawrence, gave it qualified approval.

France readied for its ostensibly transitional mandatory authority in Syria and Lebanon, while Britain prepared for a similar oversight role in Iraq and Palestine. In a letter to Aubrey Herbert, a friend and diplomatic insider, Gertrude Bell lamented: "O my dear they are making such a horrible muddle of the Near East. I confidently anticipate that it will be much worse than it was before the war--except Mesopotamia which we may manage to hold up out of the general chaos."

In the even, Bell was mistaken. By June 1920, armed insurrection had erupted along the upper Euphrates, allegedly fueled by bribes from Faisal's agents. But gold alone could not explain the rebellion's spread down the Euphrates to Najaf and Karbala, then to the muddy alleys of Basra and the slums encircling Baghdad. A worried Gertrude Bell noted that the Sunni and Shiite faithful were closing ranks in shared hostility to the British occupation. An embattled Baghdad command rushed reinforcements from town to town. Colonel Wilson appealed urgently for an increase in the 80,000 occupation force, but at a time when London was contending with a deepening recession, postwar debts, and riots or terrorism in Egypt, Ireland, and India. More injudiciously, Wilson posed a quasi-ultimatum: either send more troops or withdraw entirely. Then, as the Iraqi rebellion peaked in August, France deposed of Faisal from his Syrian throne.

In a letter to The Times, Lawrence found it unsurprising that the occupation regime had collapsed, since its manager were 450 British officers and not a single Mesopotamian. He wondered, "Why should Englishmen (or Indians) have to be killed to make the Arab Government in Mesopotamia, which is [our] considered intention?. . . Of course, there is oil in Mesopotamia, but we are no nearer that while the Middle East remains at war." He followed with another salvo in the London Sunday Times

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.

How long, he asked in conclusion, "will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of a form of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?"

How many last throes do you rip on the daily? You say many money. You say many many many.

12-year-long last throes? Oh yea. Welcome to the imperfect science of Contextual Oxymoronics. You know by now VP Evile, the power behind the scourge of the neocon hypocritical wave of delusion, asserted and reasserted the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes". He found his heart ailing him recently. Could it be the cold stone shell of denial is cracking to bits under the pressure of recent polling (i.e. the silent majority, aka American popular will & Mr. McFreedom-Fries Republican Walter Jones' deep-south fried withdrawal demands, oh & that other minor Republican Senator, what's his name, Bagel or Hagel is it)? And now, we get the first ever frank assertion coming out of this administration from none other than DR. Torture himself. Namely, that the insurgency could last a dozen years. A dozen years? A dozen years. Dozen. Years. All this while he admits to negotiating with terrorists, which is against official American policy. What a bloody mess.

I don't know about you, but a dozen years doesn't seem like "last throes" to me. Can we be real for a minute and think about how this proves that neoconservatives are delusional? And that this is the most important point we can draw from the charade they've played on the American people and the world?

They're liars. Just because they come with one frank admission doesn't mean we should let everything else slide. Hell no. And this whole sympathy card is going to continue tomorrow night when the George gives his speech. He's going to beg and grovel. There'll be no "bring em' ons" or "either you're with us or against us"...because frankly he's up shit-creek. He's a lame duck president. Lame & something that rhymes with duck is a better way to put what he is at this point. And Cheney...well, this is what he sowed. This is what all those eff-tard neocons have sowed upon America and the world. And now, after thumbing their nose at the UN so they could have their war, they're going to go crawling back to the global community for help. Will they really relinquish control of this "project"...as if Iraq is some workshop to the world. I hate it when I hear this crap. "Project"...as if, say, we cut off some man's legs and see if we can grow the damn things back with suicide bombings and the razing of complete towns.

The logic...

Sorry, what logic?

All for the neocon dream. After bringing so much hell on earth, these neocons need to be kicked out on the curb for good. If you ask me, Neoconservative thought on the Hill is in its last throes. And those throes aren't going to take a dozen years.

You lying SOBs. Take your hell back and then go rot in it. Who are Americans to think that freedom is theirs to spread?

It's a saying that's been around for a long time. Still true.

Even when our libraries are being destroyed by bombs, we still read.

For more direct emphasis, make sure you visit Francis Deblauwe's blog courtesy of Baghdad Museum.