30 September 2007
28 September 2007
27 September 2007
The numbers are so staggering that they are hard to process mentally and impossible to process logistically: each month some 60,000 Iraqis are voting with their feet against the surge of U.S. forces by fleeing their homes. Since the invasion, more than 2.5 million Iraqis have left for neighboring countries, while 2.2 million have been forcibly displaced within Iraq - too poor to escape the country or blocked from transitioning through more peaceful provinces, which in recent months have erected checkpoints to keep them out. To put it in stark historical terms: the war has created the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since the displacement of the Palestinians in 1948.
This should give pause to any American of any stripe who hopes to call the current war a success at any point in the near future. The fact is that a huge percentage of the Iraq population has left the country, figuring that life as a destitute refugee holds more hope than life in Iraq.Here is what it looks like on the ground: in two short years, a million Iraqi refugees have poured into Syria, a country of 19 million. In U.S.-population terms, this would be the equivalent of 15 million Iraqis arriving on our shores. Overwhelmed by the deluge, Syria has said it will begin requiring visas for Iraqis next month, the practical equivalent of shutting its doors, while Jordan, which has admitted 750,000 Iraqis, closed most of its border crossings earlier this year.
And now the bordering countries are going to turn off the pressure valve!
Despite all this, the U.S. debate about withdrawal from Iraq seems remarkably indifferent to those whose lives have been upended. The Bush Administration talks of staying the course without expending nearly enough political or financial capital to mitigate the humanitarian catastrophe that it pretends does not exist. Many advocates of withdrawal point to the humanitarian disaster as a ground for leaving without addressing how worse suffering might be averted.
Thus far, the American discussion of the refugee crisis has focused on the paltry number of Iraqis the U.S. has let in. Although the U.S. was the lead architect of the invasion, only 535 Iraqis were granted entry last year. Sweden, which opposed the war, took in 8,950. Ironically, in 2000, three years before the war, the U.S. admitted 3,145 Iraqis, whereas fewer than 1,700 Iraqis have been resettled on American soil in the four years since.
The situation has grown so desperate that even our mild-mannered ambassador, Ryan Crocker, sent a harsh cable to the State Department on Sept. 7, titled "Iraqi refugee processing: Can we speed it up?" He complained of the endless "bottlenecks" delaying entry even for those Iraqis who had risked their lives working for U.S. forces. Crocker pleaded with immigration and Homeland Security officials to fast-track the screening process so the State Department's recommended 7,000 asylum slots could be filled.
But while expeditious review and expanded quotas are urgently needed, they will not affect the welfare of the several million Iraqis who have lost their homes and their livelihoods. If the Administration is to ease the toll on Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Syria and persuade them to welcome Iraqis in need, it must extend massive assistance to those governments to help fund shelter, food, sanitation, health care and transportation for arriving Iraqis. Among the 200,000 Iraqi children who have fled to Jordan, only 20,000 started school in the past year, and 6,000 of them dropped out. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should have taught us, the grievances of refugees may start as humanitarian concerns, but they quickly become security problems.
That's all we need. More uneducated middle-Eastern youth with memories of fleeing their homeland due to America's actions during the "Great Game.'
President George W. Bush is in denial about the refugee crisis. He claimed this month that "ordinary life is beginning to return" and warned that with a U.S. departure, "Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare."
Well, at least it shouldn't face a housing shortage.
But he has refused to deal with the nightmare already under way. It is as if he fears doing so would mean conceding the costs of the U.S. invasion and would undermine his arguments for staying. As he argues that we have a moral responsibility to Iraqis, it would be inconvenient for him to draw attention to how we have shirked that responsibility.
In addition, if the President were actually to insist that the U.S. and its allies resettle Iraqi refugees in earnest, he would be making it that much harder for an educated, moderate Iraqi middle class to reconstitute itself. How would Iraq "unleash the talent of its people and be an anchor of stability in the region," as Bush promised, if its doctors were practicing medicine in Detroit and its English speakers were in Langley, Va., translating Arab press reports for the CIA?
The brain drain is a legitimate concern, but the welfare of Iraqis fleeing for their lives cannot be held hostage to Bush's romantic dreams for a "free Iraq." The U.S. lost the war in Iraq. At the heart of the debacle in Iraq has been the repeated failure to deliver a more secure life for Iraqis. It is long past time that we stop simply debating the "fate of Iraq" and start addressing the fate of Iraqis.
YANGON, Myanmar - Security forces fired automatic weapons into thousands of pro-democracy protesters for a second day Thursday, and the military government said 9 people were killed and 11 wounded. Tens of thousands defied the ruling military junta's crackdown with a 10th straight day of demonstrations in Myanmar's largest city, Yangon. Security forces also raided several monasteries overnight, beating monks and arresting more than 100, according to a monk at one monastery.
26 September 2007
(1) Most people over-rely on the major media outlets to give them info on candidates and these outlets only cover the front runners who start out with extensive corporate funding, and
(2) many of us our worried about supporting a candidate that lacks the corporate/media imprimatur since we don't want to "just throw away our vote".
Dennis Kucinich tends to lead most of the Democratic pack, a fact that says volumes about people's actual views when divorced from the practicality of "picking someone who can actually win." The popularity of Kucinich turns much of conventional wisdom on its head--especially this bizarre idea that there's some tiny determined faction of far-left weirdos determined to drag the Democratic Party to the left. Kucinich is about as left as they come yet his views are immensely popular. Mike Gavel, who is ardently opposed to Shrub's War and is calling for an immediate withdrawal, is number one among all candidates.
24 September 2007
Or maybe the Christian God doesn't exist. Or maybe the Greek Gods actually exist. Or maybe a religion that no one on our planet has acknowledged yet is actually the Truth. Or maybe some higher power zapped us into existence a second ago with all our memories intact and will zap us out of existence a second from now. Like I said, once we've abandoned reason along with causality, any scenario from amongst the infinite possibilities becomes possible.
23 September 2007
21 September 2007
American convoys under the protection of Blackwater USA resumed on Friday, four days after the U.S. Embassy suspended all land travel by its diplomats and other civilian officials in response to the alleged killing of civilians by the security firm. A top aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had earlier conceded it may prove difficult for the Iraqi government to follow through on threats to expel Blackwater and other Western security contractors.
It may prove difficult indeed. Since these mercenaries don't fall under Iraqi law and aren't part of the UCMJ, some of us are rightfully curious as to their legal status. Perhaps our Commander and Chief can help unmuddy the waters for us:
20 September 2007
Other bloggers on the issue:
Spidel Blog looks at the difference in media response to the Andrew Meyer story and the Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. story. Much of the rightward blogosphere reaction, on the other hand, has focused on "important" aspect of Meyer's character (why this is important in a free-speech issue I know not)--his tendency to be um political and um independent (even comedic!), his unmachoness and wussy unSpartanlike academician tendencies, and his failure to immediately salute the policemen who walked up to him. Other writers decided that the whole focus should be on taser technology. (Once again, that great American belief that a new technology will be invented to keep us from ever having to face a difficult decision).
18 September 2007
16 September 2007
14 September 2007
13 September 2007
12 September 2007
9 September 2007
5 September 2007
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not ambiguous on this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The idea that a couple would be arrested and charged for wearing the wrong T-shirt in public is so outlandish that it's really hard to get one's mind around it. Maybe the newspapers got this wrong and it really happened in North Korea or perhaps Stalinist Russia. Certainly not here in the-land-of-the-free hunkydory America.
And now we're being treated to countless photo ops of soldiers hugging Bush during his last trip to Iraq. Where are the pictures of the soldiers who glared at him with their arms crossed. Were these people sent to the back of the crowd for failing to voice a "patriotic opinion"? Were they turned down for a promotion? Are we to believe that this president who can't even brook the subtlest forms of dissent here at home is going to passionately push for democratic values abroad?