Burnt Orange Report

Choose Victory (A Predictably Long Dobbs Post)

By Andrew Dobbs

So George W. Bush has reasserted his by now well-tread position on the War in Iraq: “stay the course”. His “Plan for Victory” as the banners noted was to “not run.” He tells us that the process will take time and patience and that soon things will be so much better and we will finally be able to begin drawing down troops. Yet with a government riddled with corruption and beset by insurgency, a military defined largely by its incompetence in the face of murderous thugs and a recent history of chaos, this all seems a bit insanely optimistic.

I can hear the cries now. Dobbs flip flops again? Hardly. Because the opposing sentiments seem far more shortsighted than George W. Bush’s at this point. Calls for withdrawal to just “over the horizon” would lead us to abandon the Iraqi people, break our commitment to them and make it clear to the families of fallen soldiers that their sons and daughters really did die in vain.

I suppose these statements will raise the righteous indignation of withdrawal supporters, but what part of this isn’t accurate? Iraq is unable to defend itself against the homegrown intrigues of Baathists and Bin Ladenists, not to mention the international ploys developing in Syria and Iran. Indeed, other than complete chaos the most likely scenario is that the government we have worked so hard to establish will relish the absence of US oversight to amp up their already considerable corruption and fight amongst themselves over who gets to be the next dictator or mildly legitimate plutocrat. Seems like a desperate place for the people of Iraq to be, and little as they like us now they are likely to be livid when the problems that our haphazard occupation has created would explode into transcontinental crises that would plague us for decades.

But more significant than all of this, we would have to live with the knowledge that 2,000 soldiers have died in vain. Many of you will argue that their lives were already lost in vain in that this war was “unwinnable.” That, my friends, is idiotic. Does anyone really think that with the most powerful military in the history of the world, an $11 trillion economy and 300 million people we really can’t beat a group of maybe 10,000 insurgents that are loosely organized, lightly armed, poorly trained and spread over a country “slightly more than twice the size of Idaho”? Remember that we invaded the country and toppled its full-fledged government and laid waste to its standing army in a matter of days. This is a pre-conference schedule game, people. This is one of those “money games” where some Division II team gets their skull cracked by our scout team.

The only thing we lack is the one non-negotiable when it come to war: the will to win. We need to decide to win this war. Bush wants us to stay the course as we circle the drain in a particularly execrable part of the world; Pelosi et al want us to flee ASAP. Instead, we should admit that “the course” has been terrifically blown and rather than staying it we should change it and rather than giving up we should redouble our efforts until we have won. We should decide to win or resign ourselves to losing.

Bush’s incompetence is proved by all of the reasons we mentioned above. He continually talks about the “hard work” of this effort, but any job can be made hard if you are bad at it. He claims that “he gives the generals what they ask for” and that “they haven’t asked for more troops/money/materiel/whatever.” That probably has something to do with the fact that the last guy who made a bold request for troops was Eric Shinseki who was subsequently compelled to update his resume. Generals don’t become generals because they tell their superiors things they don’t want to hear, nor by declining to learn from the mistakes of those who bilged out. They quickly learned to ask for what the President wanted to give to them.

And for a president who casually admits that longtime political hack Karl Rove has a role in foreign policy decisions and has appointed another PR maven fresh out of Travis County, Karen Hughes, to a significant diplomatic post it should come as no surprise that politics will always take priority over doing what is right. Interestingly enough his gamble failed to pay off: he is more unpopular than he would have been had he actually done what he claims he has, to demand mutual sacrifice for the war effort. Short of the couple hundred thousand soldiers and their families (out of 300 million people and perhaps 100 million families) and in particular the 2,000 who have died, what have we really had to sacrifice during this war? Bush kept cutting taxes! We not only haven’t had a draft, hadn’t had cutbacks in consumer goods or restriction of any of our liberties or forswearing of our luxuries, we actually have more money in our pockets than we did before the damn thing. Indeed, the only thing we have sacrificed is our dignity and the only thing we have gone without is our pride of place as the last great hope of humanity. A bunch of the same slick, well-heeled political hacks that are less than a decade removed from county commissioner races in Houston were the ones telling him how to fight a war without really trying and now that it is clear that they fucked up, his congenital inability to admit failure and his cultural brand of stiff-neckedness is leading us to disaster.

The thing that keeps me up at nights (and it is now 3 AM) is the fact that this guy gets to be president for another three years, and Democrats aren’t offering a whole lot more. We pride ourselves on our moral superiority and we mouth silly platitudes about how we aren’t pacifists, we simply believe that we should only fight “just wars.” The sad fact is that all wars are unjust, but that in a world full of evil we sometimes have to choose our particular brand of injustice. War is little more than politics writ large and with grossly inflated stakes. There is little use in opposing a war that is already begun, as one is most likely to lose the battle (as we stay in the war) or in the event that one succeeds can have only the cold celebration of knowing that their side lost and their countrymen died for no good reason. Keeping your country out of a war is often noble; pulling it is never more than a tragedy. Rather, we should simply resign ourselves to the reality of the war and try and win the damn thing. Sensible Democrats and the few honest Republicans now freed from their party leaders’ iron grip now that chaos has set in in DC should come together to pressure this administration to win the war.

This also happens to be one of those beautiful times when the right policy also happens to make for good politics. No matter how many people tell the pollsters that they oppose the war, few relish the prospect of surrender and those that do tend to live in places we win anyways (for better or for worse). They cannot stomach a vote for the man and the party that has led us into this shameful enterprise, yet the prospect of voting for a party that seems to be capitalizing on our losses seems cold comfort. Polls reflect this, as Bush’s unpopularity is paired with disdain for our party. John Murtha could have been a voice for a new position, and I think he still can, though I’d like to see others (perhaps Harold Ford as he runs for US Senate or Chet Edwards, a good pro-military Texas Democrat and the President’s congressman) stand up and make our party’s position clear: we don’t believe in staying the course, we believe in changing the course. We don’t believe in withdrawal, we believe in winning. To coin a bumper sticker: Don’t Withdraw—Win.

I’ll wrap up with my thoughts on what winning would be. The necessity of this task proves the absurdity of the way Bush jumped into this war. Typically victory is self-evident: a certain bit of territory is obtained, a political entity is obliterated or a particular enemy surrenders. But because the president, in his intense desire to go to war and his shameful attempt to do so without demanding any sort of gut check from the American people, kept moving the goal posts to find a casus belli that pleased everybody we don’t know why we went there any more. In fact, the reason he initially sold the effort on—weapons of mass destruction—turned out to be a non-starter: the weapons were not there. Mission Accomplished. But rather than declaring victory in what ended up being false terms, I believe we should look to the legitimate reasons that existed for war.

First, the US and its allies had a legitimate cause for war beginning in 1998 when Saddam Hussein broke the terms of the ceasefire agreement that halted hostilities during the First Gulf War. In essence, Saddam’s expelling of the weapons inspectors resumed the First Gulf War, which was fought because the government of Iraq refused to recognize the sovereignty of its neighbors and endangered global security by threatening the oil resources of Saudi Arabia. So the first measure of victory is to establish an Iraqi government that respects the sovereignty of its neighbors and cooperates with the rest of the world in a peaceful and constructive way. We need a strong, respected, legitimate central government that has the approval of its people and the rest of the world.

Secondly, Saddam Hussein was sympathetic to, solicitous of and beginning to cooperate with international terrorist groups that wish to harm the United States and our allies. This is a point that the Left likes to deny, despite the fact that a Senate Intelligence Committee Report signed by both John Kerry and John Edwards noted that there had been some cooperation between the government of Iraq and members of al Qaeda. These contacts were testy, embryonic and casual, but it was clear that the longstanding animosity between the two groups had begun to thaw in the wake of 9/11. Don’t believe this? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is currently “leading” the insurgency and is recognized by Osama bin Laden as the head of “al Qaeda in Iraq”, was in Iraq before the invasion with the approval and full knowledge of Saddam’s government. That, my friends, is harboring a known terrorist, one who is now responsible for hundreds of American deaths. Additionally, Saddam’s support of Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu Nidal and other primarily Palestinian-led terrorist groups was actually trumpeted by his government, and he openly gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to suicide bombers and their families. These groups have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israelis and others. Our second measure of victory is an Iraq that is free of terrorist operations and able to continue to ferret out and prosecute terrorists in their own country. Additionally, Iraq should be led by a government that is allied with the United States in the War on Terrorism.

Thirdly, the government of Iraq was brutal to its own people to the point of creating a moral imperative for the United States to address the issue. The first step in this effort should be to remove the mote from our eye: we should acknowledge our wrongdoing at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere and make a commitment to refrain from any form of torture. We must then establish the organs of representative democracy that will lead to lasting self-determination and respect for individual rights. A particular threat to human rights in Iraq is its proximity to three vicious suppressers of human rights: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Iraq needs defensive military capabilities that will enable it to protect itself from threats posed by these countries and others without raising the specter of a return to her past as a threat to these same neighbors. Finally, we need to recognize the threat to the Iraqi people’s dignity that economic devastation and the exacerbating effects of UN sanctions pose. The US and its allies (which can include many of those who were opposed to military action) must help Iraq develop its economy in a way that allows for free enterprise, economic independence and widespread prosperity. This effort will take a generation or more, but reestablishing and expanding the oil industry, helping the agricultural sector recover and creating a climate suitable for other enterprises must be undertaken.

I’d say that an Iraq with a legitimate and self-sufficient government that is freely elected, respectful of human rights, an ally to the United States and other free nations, an Iraq free of terrorism, economically developing at a fast pace and able to defend itself from threats foreign and domestic is a good measure of victory. We will have to spend quite a bit of time and effort killing terrorists, training soldiers, cajoling government officials, building infrastructure and sealing off borders, and it might take a few years. It will, most likely, take decades for us to be comfortable with having no troops on the ground (we still have troops in Germany and Japan, for goodness’ sake), but we can have a minimal presence in a relatively short time as long as we are willing to win and make the sacrifices that demands. Our choice is simple: sacrifice and victory or “staying the course” and withdrawing towards defeat. Honor or shame.

Choose Victory.

Ever wake up in the morning and get the feeling the H-Chron has been taken over by Islamists?

By Jim Dallas

The H-Chron gave us a perfectly ambiguous headline on the front page today (and what a significant day it is):

Coalition Building

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I've been paying attention to the ongoing stalemate of who is to lead Germany after the most recent round of elections in which the ruling SPD-Grune Coalition lost its majority though pulled back from a crushing defeat to more or less tie the Conservative opposition. Because of German election laws, neither major party has an outright majority and cannot reach it with either of their traditional minor party partners.

This has led to the possibility of odd major-minor partnerships which have mostly all been rejected now, leaving a grand coalition as the only remaining option- a union between the two major parties. And it seems like that is exactly what will end up happening, but it does not decide the big question of which Party gets the chancellery. While the CDU/CSU does have 3 more seats than the SPD, Gerhard Schroeder is more popular personally than the conservative Angela Merkel.

I know this has nothing to do with Texas politics, but I'm half German and many of our Hill Country readers might be interested. If anyone has some thoughts on where this might end up, leave a comment.

Google Earth Helps Find Ancient Ruins

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

This is a bit off topic but something so incredibly cool from an application that I found to be really powerful when viewing updated NOLA flooding imagery. The story on a man using Google Earth to look at his region discovered what turned out to be ancient Roman ruins from over 2000 years ago.

If you havn't used Google Earth before, do so, though a broadband connection is almost a must.

Four More Years....

By Damon McCullar

...and that's not of the Bush administration. No, unfortunatly it's much worse. That's how long the Army plans to stay in Iraq at it's current manning of more than 100,000 troops. That was reported yesterday in an interview that Gen. Peter Schoomaker had with the AP.
The story is also being carried by CNN (that's where I heard about it). That's seven years in Iraq if they get out in four more years. That information is a little depressing to me, so tell me how you guys feel about it.

Four Small Explosions Rock London

By Damon McCullar

Four smaller explosions rocked the London mass transit system today. The blast are reported to be small in nature than two weeks ago. It seems that only the detonators are going off, or the explosives themselves are somehow defective. The authorities are thinking at this point that it is a copy-cat crime but are not ruling out terrorist activity. The explosions were in three subway stations and a bus. Scotland Yard is investigating an "incident" at University College Hospital, where armed officers have been deployed. Check out CNN for more info.

British Troops On To Something...

By Marcus Ceniceros

British troops have raided a home in northern England with leads that the residents are linked to the bombing attacks in London last week.

52 people have been declared dead from the attack, with some families still looking for their loved ones. Over 700 were injured.

Officials have not released much information and the story is still developing.

Interesting Facts:
It has been said that Spanish investigators involved with the Madrid bombings have helped investigate leads.

Bike sales in London have risen as people try to find alternative routes of transportation.

US Alert Raised to Orange for Trains

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

There should be a press conference within the hour. While the general alert will remain at Yellow, it will be raised to "high" for the U.S. rail network, a move that affects Amtrak, commuter trains, subways and other rail systems.

More on the story here.

More on the London Attacks

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I just started reading Google News about 30 minutes ago and wanted to point out a couple of sources for more up to date, on the ground, live coverage. One is the Guardian Blog, this Flickr photostream for pictures, an index of eyewitness accounts, and this wikipedia entry that is being updated as we go.

The attacks appear timed to occur after the first day of the G-8 summit (The 2012 Olympic bid win was likely unrelated since it wasn't expected and is a much harder event and date to plan around.) The attack style initially appears to be done similarly to the Madrid bombings and Al Queda has claimed responsibility.

Terror Blast Rock London

By Damon McCullar

From CNN this morning:

Four explosions in London's transport system have killed a number of people and wounded dozens more in what UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said was an apparent terrorist attack. More fatalities were sure to follow -- emergency services personnel told CNN that a rescue operation at Kings Cross station had successfully evacuated all survivors, leaving dead below ground "in the double digits." Three of the blasts took place in the city's subway system and one more hit a double-decker bus, all at the height of rush hour. International SOS, an international medical emergency service, reported that the police had found explosive traces in at least one of four confirmed blast locations.

Live 8: They Don't Want Your Money, They Want YOU!

By Marcus Ceniceros

The Live 8 concerts have been on MTV and VH1 all day. There is some great music by artists like Sting, Madonna, Jay-Z, Lincoln Park, and tons more.

But besides the music, there is an important mission: end poverty in Africa. Every day, 30,000 kids die due to poverty.

Help send a message to President Bush and the rest of the G8 leaders to make a commitment to end poverty by doubling aid, droping the debt, and making trade laws fair.

Visit www.live8live.com to sign your name, upload a picture, and LEARN about what you can do.

A Day In The Life of a Democracy-on-the-March

By Jim Dallas

Let's tune into Google News to see how things are going.

June 28, ca. 22:00 GMT (01:00 June 29, Egyptian time) - The United States House of Representatives rejects an amendment to cut military aid to Egypt. The amendment was offered by House Democrats concerned about Egypt's human rights record.

June 29, ca. 14:00 GMT (17:00 Egyptian Time) - Ayman Nour, the main opposition candidate, is put on trial on allegedly trumped-up charges of forgery.

June 29, ca. 15:00 GMT (18:00 Egyptian Time) - Egypt's highest court throws out the referendum, passed by over 80 percent of Egyptian voters, which would have permitted more than one presidential candidate to stand for election. The likely result is that President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt since 1981, will be unopposed (again) for re-election in September.

Final Thoughts On UK Elections (From Me At Least)

By Andrew Dobbs

I don't mean to distract people from the passing of Rep. Moreno, things are sad around here and the Capitol is said to be like a ghost town. I share with everyone else in expressing my sorrow at this loss and I'll be praying for Moreno's family tonight.

The elections last night were exciting, interesting and have shook up Westminster in ways that are quite unexpected. Let's run down some of the big implications of last night.

First, while the Lib Dems continued in their growth, they are still clearly not going to be a viable government any time in the near future. They did gain 11 seats, giving them their biggest number of seats in the Commons since 1929, but the fact that most of the swing was towards the Conservatives and not the Lib Dems suggest that when people are looking for an alternative to Labour, they look to the Tories and not the Lib Dems. Still, as Kos points out in a Guardian article, they gained four points over 2001, 11 seats and came in second in 160 constituencies, 50 more than in 2001. They are growing, but they are still not the second party that they ought to be.

Secondly, this was about the best possible outcome for the Tories. No one expected them to win-- Labour's majority was just too big. Gaining more than 30 seats and cutting Labour's majority by almost 2/3 does suggest that they are back to life. Michael Howard should not be so quick about stepping down as leader, but Tories should hope that this gives them a much-needed shot in the arm and that new leadership will mean fresh ideas for the party. Labour came back when they spelled out a unique, creative and ambitious platform for Britain. New Tory leadership could do the same for their party and turn their resurgence into a government in the next election.

Third, Tony Blair will not be PM for much longer. He is likely to hand off power to his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Brown has always looked a bit uncomfortable mouthing the platitudes of "third-way" New Labourism. If he takes a hard tack back to the Left, it could mean jitters in the economic sector and an economic downturn that would give a big opening to the Tories. It would also take the wind out of the Lib Dems' sails. Still, he is very popular with Brits and his current leadership of the Treasury has been very wise-- his granting independence to the Bank of England will be heralded as one of the best moves Britain made domestically in the course of the twentieth century. If he can keep his popularity up and continue on a moderate political course Labour could be the majority for the long-haul.

The war was clearly unpopular in England, and Blair's character was called into question. Things have changed in Britain-- Blair received the lowest vote total for a governing majority in decades and for the first time in British parliamentary history the number of qualified voters who stayed at home exceeds the majority won by the governing party. Blair is the lamest of ducks right now and Britain is about to be undergoing some serious soul-seeking.

UK Election Open Thread

By Byron LaMasters

Labour looks to win a third majority in a row for Tony Blair, although sharply reduced from their current majority. I'm watching the BBC coverage on C-SPAN. Let us know your thoughts.

To The Random Brit Browsing Our Site: Vote Lib Dem

By Andrew Dobbs

Tomorrow is Election Day in the UK, and British voters have an important choice in front of them. It isn't the choice that would seem most likely on the surface: whether you want a government led by Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Tony Blair is going to win, period. It would take a monumental, unprecedented and completely unforeseen jump from the Labour Party to one of the others to ensure any other outcome. That is not the choice.

The choice isn't even about whether you think Tony Blair has done a good or bad job. The fact of the matter is he's been better than average. He exaggerated claims about Iraq even more than Bush did, and that was wrong (especially when there were solid reasons for going to war without having to lie) and many of his top proposals have been a bust (NHS waiting lists are still too long, hospitals are dirty, schools have become unmanageable). On top of that he has failed Britain on some pressing issues, introducing tuition fees in Britain's public universities, failing to address increased long-term care costs for the elderly, letting local taxes spiral out of control for those on fixed incomes. Despite all of this, Britain has seen 13 straight years of economic growth, and more people have jobs now than any time in the last several decades. And despite the bellyaching by various elements in the UK, he was on the right side of the war against terror, investing his nation's honor and resources in the effort to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.

But the question shouldn't be about that. When you know that Labour is going to win, you are presented with a powerful opportunity-- the opportunity to realign the political order. Tony Blair's "New Labour" mantra changed the political divide in England and established a new consensus. Now there is an opportunity to return the Liberals to their classic position as the second party in the British system. British voters can listen to the clap trap that Tony Blair is throwing out there about how voting for Lib Dems will return a Tory government (though that is next to impossible), or they can cast their vote for a fast-growing, progressive-minded, increasingly trustworthy party-- the Liberal Democrats.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine if, tomorrow, the Lib Dems get 28% of the vote (the most they would have gotten in decades), the Tories get 30% of the vote and Labour gets 35% (with the rest going to minor parties). Using the BBC's nifty seat calculator, that would mean a solid Labour majority of 116 (though a 22 seat loss for the government), a two seat gain for the Tories and a 23 seat gain for the Liberals. What would the implications be? First, it would hasten Tony Blair's handing over power to the more social democratic chancellor Gordon Brown. It would also mean that the Tories would be seen as an increasingly unviable choice for government, while the Liberal Democrats are emerging as the second party of British government. Continued refinement of message, continued build up of resources and a little bit of discipline could mean that in 2010 the Liberal Democrats emerge as the second party in Britain.

A Labour/Lib Dem divide means that the questions won't be whether or not government should support the most vulnerable, whether or not tax policy should be progressive, whether or not education, health care and other necessities ought to be priorities of the Parliament; but rather how those noble goals ought to be achieved. Britain will be a better country for that.

This isn't to say that the Conservatives don't have some interesting ideas and priorities. I think that their rhetoric on immigration has been rather nativist, but I think that the issue must be addressed-- Britain's values are changing, their culture is being impacted in dramatic ways. They are having trouble assimilating thousands of poor immigrants and it is causing alienation that leads to a multitude of social problems. Something must be done and only the Tories have had the guts to say something, though their guts have gotten in the way of their hearts. Also, I am a skeptic of European integration, particularly for the least European of all EU countries- the United Kingdom. I think that it is in Britain's best interest to remain a part of the EU that keeps its fellow countries at a healthy distance. Only the Tories are a serious Euroskeptic party (without the frightening far-rightism of UKIP or BNP). But the Tories are unprepared to lead and their message is muddled. Better a tried-and-true Tony Blair or an exciting-and-fresh Charles Kennedy than a muddle-headed unreformed Thatcherite like Michael Howard.

In the end, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Lib Dems. It is time that they emerge as Britain's primary challengers to Labour and redefine the political system in the cradle of parliamentary democracy. Tony Blair will still be PM on Friday, but hopefully some Friday down the road, the ginger-haired Scot will get the opportunity.

Pope Benedict XVI

By Byron LaMasters

As you might imagine, I'm disappointed with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as the next Pope, but it could certainly be worse. I agree with the Kos post that progressives ought to refrain from calling this guy a Nazi, because he was not a Nazi, and actually had the courage to stand up to the Nazi's on several occasions. Furthermore, as a 78 year old man, it is unlikely that he will serve nearly as long as John Paul II, and is most likely to serve in a more transitional role.

While I believed it unlikely that a socially progressive pope would be elected, I had hoped that the next pope would focus more on social justice issues such as poverty, hunger and HIV/AIDS. I still hope that is the case, as opposed to the pope focusing on controversial social issues, but we shall see. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Use the comment section as an open thread to discuss the new pope.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has some thoughts on the election today that are certainly worth taking a look at.

Why do Senator Hutchison's staffers love Marxist terrorism?

By Jim Dallas

The Mujahedin-el Khalq (MEK) are, to put it bluntly, not nice people. The State Department describes them as a foreign terrorist organization:

The MEK philosophy mixes Marxism and Islam. Formed in the 1960s, the organization was expelled from Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and its primary support came from the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein since the late 1980s. The MEK’s history is filled with anti-Western attacks as well as terrorist attacks on the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad...

Nonetheless, that didn't stop some of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's aides from attending a MEK get-together in Washington yesterday, according to Nick Hoover at The Agonist.

(more below)

To be sure, the group invited dozens of senators and representatives, but only a few decided to show. Why? Consider:

Former members and friends of members of the group describe the organization, which insists its members be celibate, as a cult. "They take your individuality and beliefs and tell you that all the love you have must go to the leadership," Sametipour says. "That's how they make terrorists."

Ronak Dashti, 20, who was also introduced to a reporter by the Iranian government, said she was abducted in Turkey by MEK members who took her to Iraq. There, she says, she had to sign documents saying she had no right to contact her family and should not think about marriage. She and three other defectors described communal living, hours of menial work and nightly self-criticism sessions.

(USA Today, Thursday)

In 1991, MEK fighters were on the front lines of Saddam's brutal counterinsurgency campaigns in the Shiite south and Kurdish north. "Up until the fall of the regime, they were part and parcel of the Iraqi military. And they were heavily involved in suppressing the Kurdish uprising of 1991," the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan representative in Washington, Qubad Talabani, said yesterday.

...

Some congressmen shared Ms. Rajavi's position on the terrorist designation. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican of Colorado, compared those gathered yesterday to America's Founding Fathers. Not all members of the Iranian opposition, however, have such fond words for the MEK. The organization has been left out of the nascent movement inside the country to press for a constitutional referendum.

An Iranian activist in Los Angeles, Roxanne Ganji, told The New York Sun yesterday, "They are definitely a cult, and that is a dangerous thing. If anyone goes to Iran and takes the pulse of the people, though, 90% would never allow them to go back. That does not mean the information they gave America was not good. But they are a terrorist organization. If the United States wants information, then they can get it from viable groups and not terrorists."

(New York Sun, "Iranian Group Asks State To Lift Terror Designation", pg. 8, this morning)

Contrary to what some may say, there are many opposition groups in Iran which refuse to work with the MEK on principle. So why would any thinking person support them?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," said terrorism expert Neil Livingstone at a news conference in Washington in February where he and several retired U.S. diplomats and military men unveiled a new organization, the Iran Policy Committee, whose goal is to overthrow the Iranian government by supporting Iranian opposition groups.

(USA Today, Thursday)

In 2003, the Washington Post reported that some senior administration figures would like to use the MEK as a proxy force in Iran, in the same manner that the Northern Alliance was employed against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

("Oil and The Coming War with Iran", Wednesday)

I am inclined to remind Senator Hutchison that this lovely theory worked out real well the last time we employed terrorists for geo-strategic purposes. And the time before that.

Harold Meyerson on Mexico

By Jim Dallas

From the Washington Post:

Democracy may be all well and good, but Lopez Obrador is just not Bush's kind of guy. As mayor of Mexico City, he's increased public pensions to the elderly and spent heavily on public works and the accompanying job creation. He's criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement as a boon for the corporate sector and a bust for Mexican workers. (As economist Jeff Faux has documented, while productivity in Mexican manufacturing rose 54 percent in the eight years after NAFTA's enactment, real wages actually declined.) He's opposed to Fox's plan to privatize Mexico's state-owned oil and gas industry -- a stance that probably doesn't endear him to the Texas oilmen currently employed as president and vice president of the United States.

Worse yet, Lopez Obrador's populist politics and smarts have made him the most popular political leader in Mexico today. The much touted "free-market" economics of President Fox have done nothing to improve the lives of ordinary Mexicans. Lopez Obrador's victory in next year's election would mark a decisive repudiation of that neo-liberal model. Coming after the elections of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina and Hugo Chavez (repeatedly) in Venezuela, it would be one more indication, a huge one, that Latin America has rejected an economics of corporate autonomy, public austerity and no worker rights.

So, democracy in Ukraine? We'll be there. Lebanon? Count on us. Kyrgyzstan? With bells on. Mexico? Where's that? Maybe they should move to Central Asia, change their name to Mexistan and promise to privatize the oil. That's the kind of democracy the Bush guys really like.

America-bashing is not exactly a road to salvation, and there are plenty of folks who think Lula is doing a good job of accomodating global capitalism in Brazil (and frankly, I doubt Lopez Obrador would be a much of a real left-winger if he is elected, either). At any rate, regardless of whether or not you buy into Meyerson's cynical theory of U.S. - Mexican relations, we've claimed to be the indispensable democracy-promoting nation. It stands to reasont that watching a legal lynching in Mexico without comment is not exactly a bold, principled thing to do.

Mexican Democracy Watch

By Jim Dallas

In about a year, Mexico will have its first post-PRI presidential election. Lindsay at Majikthise brings our attention to what may be a less-than-spectacular turn of events: the upcoming impeachment trial of Mexico City Mayor Andres Miguel Lopez Obrador.

The PRI and PAN both would benefit greatly if the PRD were wounded by scandal. While Mexico is now a two-and-a-half party system, with the PRI contesting the PAN in the north and the PRD in the south, my gut tells me this is ultimately an unstable arrangement, and the likely result is probably a two-party system. Which two parties, though, is a big question.

Vicente Fox, of course, is barred from re-election by Mexico's constitution.

Anyone Surprised?

By Zach Neumann

This morning, the NY Times reported that U.S. intelligence pertaining to WMD’s in Iraq was patently incorrect. I don’t think this comes as a shock to anyone. Check out the story:

A report made public this morning concludes that American intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" in almost all of their prewar assessments about the state of unconventional weapons in Iraq, and that on issues of this importance "we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude."

It adds, "The harm done to American credibility by our all too public intelligence failures in Iraq will take years to undo."

The Economist had something along these lines last week. I guess it goes without saying that the greatest tool in the war against terrorism is information. Given the fact that the application of conventional military force does little to halt the spread of non state militants, it is vital that we fully develop our special forces, elite police units and intelligence agencies. Despite arguments made to the contrary by the Bushies in the National Security Strategy (NSS), America’s primary response to the threat of terrorism is still regime change. This has not (and will not) work. Though I’m not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld, I think he realizes this to an extent. While he has (obviously) supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, he has also attempted to revamp the capabilities of the U.S. military to deal with unconventional threats. To a large extent, this has included major changes to our intelligence infrastructure. Hopefully, his proposals will be taken seriously (despite suffering a significant setback last week).

I think I'm going to be sick...

By Zach Neumann

It’s been confirmed. The United States has (and probably) is deporting terror suspects to foreign countries to be tortured by governments not bound by petty little things like due process of law. The NY Times reports:

Maher Arar, a 35-year-old Canadian engineer, is suing the United States, saying American officials grabbed him in 2002 as he changed planes in New York and transported him to Syria where, he says, he was held for 10 months in a dank, tiny cell and brutally beaten with a metal cable.

Now federal aviation records examined by The New York Times appear to corroborate Mr. Arar's account of his flight, during which, he says, he sat chained on the leather seats of a luxury executive jet as his American guards watched movies and ignored his protests.

The tale of Mr. Arar, the subject of a yearlong inquiry by the Canadian government, is perhaps the best documented of a number of cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which suspects have accused the United States of secretly delivering them to other countries for interrogation under torture. Deportation for interrogation abroad is known as rendition.

In papers filed in a New York court replying to Mr. Arar's lawsuit, Justice Department lawyers say the case was not one of rendition but of deportation. They say Mr. Arar was deported to Syria based on secret information that he was a member of Al Qaeda, an accusation he denies.

I understand that certain constitutional provisions have to be circumvented from time to time in the name of national security. However, I question if this is one of those times. I am posting this because I find myself in something of an intellectual quagmire. While my small-l-liberal sensibilities are shaken when I read about this case, I still understand that the government needs to be able to deal with potential terrorists quickly. It seems there is no right answer here. More than anything, this article makes me sad because I’m beginning to realize that security and liberty are not completely compatible. While this conclusion may seem obvious to some, it is one I’ve just come to accept. I am deeply disturbed by all of this.

Arms Race with China?

By Zach Neumann

Things with the Chinese keep getting thicker. This morning, the NY Times reported that the European Union is probably going to move forward with plans to remove an arms ban on China:

Senior members of Congress from both parties emerged from a meeting with President Bush on Tuesday warning Europe that if it lifts its ban on arms sales to China, the United States may retaliate with severe restrictions on technology sales to European companies.

The warning came after Mr. Bush, on his trip to Europe last week, twice cautioned the Europeans not to lift the restrictions, in place for 15 years. His insistence was based, at least in part, on a new American intelligence assessment that Beijing is rapidly becoming better equipped to carry out a sophisticated invasion of Taiwan and to counter any effort by the United States to react to such an attack, administration officials and intelligence analysts say.

After the White House meeting on Tuesday, Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that if the ban is lifted - as European leaders have said they plan to do in coming months - Congress could react with "a prohibition on a great number of technical skills and materials, or products, being available to Europeans." The ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, called a lifting of the ban "a nonstarter with Congress."

Their statements reinforce warnings that Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made in meetings with Europeans over the past several weeks that the weapons sales would amount to a transfer of even more sophisticated military technology to China. But European officials say that the concerns are overstated, and that they are considering a compromise proposal that would keep advanced technologies from being exported.

Although Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice have spoken publicly about the sale of heavy weapons, Pentagon officials say the biggest concern is the technology that goes with it, including radar and battlefield communication systems that could take China's rapid military buildup to a new level. And to make their case, the officials have begun to discuss how such technology would give China an increased ability to intimidate Taiwan with the threat of invasion if it moves too aggressively toward independence.

The motivations for the officials to discuss this intelligence in interviews over the past two weeks are varied, and certainly include concerns about how the Chinese buildup could affect American security interests. But the discussion also comes as Congress takes up Mr. Bush's new spending proposals, which devote a majority of supplemental funding to land forces and the war in Iraq, while missions related to perceived threats from China fall mainly to the Navy and the Air Force.

What is the EU thinking?!. Though, I hate to say it, I’m having a John Mearsheimer moment. I believe that it would be foolish for Europe or the United States to provide armaments to the Chinese government. Aside from blatant, continued human rights violations (which I am going to sidestep here), the Chinese have engaged in a massive naval buildup since 2002. As the article details, China is attempting to develop a military capabilities on par with those of the United States.

This is extremely dangerous. Though I could care less about preserving the “autonomy” of Taiwan, it is not in the best interest of the Atlantic powers to sell arms to an emerging power. With the world’s largest population and a rapidly modernizing economy, China will soon be able to rival the United States in the North Pacific. If their military expansion continues unabated, this power will take on global proportions, posing a significant threat to Western hegemony. In the long run, China’s expansion could throw the world back into a multi polar system, greatly increasing the chances for major power war.

Though I do not think we should make an enemy of China, certain actions must be taken to slow the growth of this potential future rival. They include: 1. Expanding and fortifying our Pacific Fleet. 2. Encouraging the remilitarization of Japan 3. Preventing the Chinese from acquiring sophisticated Western military technology 4. Encouraging the Chinese to hold off on expanding the size of their nuclear force (perhaps through subsidies and confidence building measures??) 5. Engaging the Chinese government through strong economic ties and improved diplomatic relations— it is only by making politicians in Bejing feel secure can we significantly slow Chinese military growth.

While the Bush administration is (rightly) concerned with fighting terrorism, I think they need to be aware that this is ultimately a temporary action based on passing circumstances. Very soon, I feel, the world will be plunged back into multi-power conflict, and we need to be ready for it.

Democracy in Egypt?

By Zach Neumann

Recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called off a visit to Egypt to protest the imprisonment of Al-Ghad opposition leader Ayman Nour. It looks like Hosni Mubarak is attempting to mount a response. I don’t know how sincere this is, but it seems that Egypt might be considering democratic reform.

President Hosni Mubarak asked Egypt's Parliament on Saturday to amend the Constitution to allow for direct, multiparty presidential elections later this year for the first time in the nation's history.

On the face of it, the unexpected proposal from Mr. Mubarak, a former Air Force general who has ruled Egypt unchallenged since 1981, represents a sea change in a country with a 50-year history of autocratic, one-party governments.

"The president will be elected through direct, secret balloting, opening the opportunity for political parties to run in the presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate for the people to chose from with their own will," Mr. Mubarak said, speaking live on television before an audience at the University of Menoufiya in the Egyptian delta.

Some opposition politicians and other analysts hailed the proposal as heralding a new political era for Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation, while skeptics said they wanted to await the details to be sure that the eventual constitutional amendment would not create only the appearance of democracy, a commonplace in the region.

Again, I want to emphasize how skeptical I am about Mubarak’s sincerity. He has made it fairly clear on several occasions that he wants his son to succeed him. Moreover, all he has offered at this point is some feel good, pro-democracy rhetoric (perhaps to assuage the concerns of the United States). I’m going to keep following this one…

It Isn't Vietnam...

By Andrew Dobbs

If you don't read Christopher Hitchens, you are missing out. A strange bird- a radical Leftist of the Marxist variety who whole-heartedly supports the War in Iraq- his writing is among the most articulate and interesting you can read. From urging the imprisonment of Henry Kissinger for war crimes to lauding Susan Sontag, from arguing in a special Vatican proceding that Mother Teresa was a bad person to celebrating Paul Wolfowitz, you can almost certainly find something to agree with in his writing, and if you can't it is still interesting reading nonetheless. Much better than the reflexively propagandistic nature of most conservative writing and far more intelligent than the insipid sloganeering of the Left, he should be on everyone's reading list.

This week he has a thought-provoking piece that tears apart the "Iraq is the new Vietnam" meme limb by limb with devastating insightfulness. I'll quote just a bit before adding my own ideas on the matter:

Whatever the monstrosities of Asian communism may have been, Ho Chi Minh based his declaration of Vietnamese independence on a direct emulation of the words of Thomas Jefferson and was able to attract many non-Marxist nationalists to his camp. He had, moreover, been an ally of the West in the war against Japan. Nothing under this heading can be said of the Iraqi Baathists or jihadists, who are descended from those who angrily took the other side in the war against the Axis, and who opposed elections on principle. If today's Iraqi "insurgents" have any analogue at all in Southeast Asia it would be the Khmer Rouge.

Vietnam as a state had not invaded any neighbor (even if it did infringe the neutrality of Cambodia) and did not do so until after the withdrawal of the United States when, with at least some claim to self-defense, it overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime. Contrast this, even briefly, to the record of Saddam Hussein in relation to Iran and Kuwait.

Vietnam had not languished under international sanctions for its brazen contempt for international law, nor for its building or acquisition, let alone its use of, weapons of mass destruction.

Vietnam had never attempted, in whole or in part, to commit genocide, as was the case with the documented "Anfal" campaign waged by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds.

In Vietnam the deep-rooted Communist Party was against the partition of the country and against the American intervention. It called for a boycott of any election that was not an all-Vietnam affair. In Iraq, the deep-rooted Communist Party is in favor of the regime change and has been an enthusiastic participant in the elections as well as an opponent of any attempt to divide the country on ethnic or confessional lines. (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is not even an Iraqi, hates the Kurds and considers the religion of most Iraqis to be a detestable heresy: not a mistake that even the most inexperienced Viet Cong commander would have been likely to make.)

Hitchens was (and is) a committed opponent of the Vietnam War and supports the action in Iraq, so his commentary is a bit more enlightening than the Leftists who oppose both for bad reasons or Right wingers who support both for even worse ones. It basically boils down to the point that in Vietnam you had a popular nationalist movement that had the materiel and military support of two superpowers that was invaded by a misguided United States after they had already won and before they had really done anything worth invading them over. In Iraq, on the other hand, the "insurgency" is an unpopular minority of a minority (only a handful of tribal groups among the Sunni minority, really) that has no real territory of its own and has only pittance support from an impoverished Iran and an al Qaeda that is a ghost of its pre-Afghanistan War power. Furthermore, rather than fighting for an independent Iraq, they are fighting for a return of either Saddam Hussein or the establishment of a non-Kurdish Sunni theocracy- not something the 80% of the country that is either Kurdish, Shi'ia or Christian are really down with. And finally the insurgency and their two icons- Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein- are both guilty of grievous crimes against their neighbors and the United States.

Insurgencies only win when they convince a sizeable portion of the population to support them, when they have steady sources of arms and other resources and territorial bases to launch their campaign from. The Baathist/Sunni Supremacist axis in Iraq has none of these, and with the successful conduct of elections this past weekend the people of Iraq have an outlet for their concerns that is far more peaceful and infinitely more effective than the insurgency. It is just a matter of time before they run out of fighters, out of weapons, out of money, out of patience and out of time. This Iraqi election was no propaganda ploy as 1967 Vietnam's was, and this "insurgency" is no Vietcong.

We're going to win this one, and it'll be something we can all be proud of.

More from Sudan

By Zach Neumann

The U.N. has reached definite conclusions about the violence in Sudan. The NY Times reported today that:

A United Nations commission investigating violence in the Darfur region of Sudan reported Monday that it had found a pattern of mass killings and forced displacement of civilians that did not constitute genocide but that represented crimes of similar gravity that should be sent to the International Criminal Court for prosecution.

In a 176-page report, the five-member panel said that its finding that genocide had not been committed "should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region," and that "international offenses such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."

The commission was appointed by Secretary General Kofi Annan in October to determine whether genocide had occurred in Darfur, in Western Sudan, where about 70,000 villagers have been killed and 1.8 million driven from their land.

It was also asked to determine how anyone convicted should be punished, and it answered by saying it "strongly" recommended that the Security Council refer the Darfur crimes to the international court in The Hague. It said the crimes in Darfur met the jurisdictional terms of the 1998 treaty creating the court.
That course of action is favored by most members of the 15-member Council, but the United States has said it will vigorously resist because it objects to the court.

The panel said the Sudanese justice system had proved unwilling or unable to pursue the crimes in what it described as a "climate of almost total impunity for human rights violations."
While the commission said that no evidence of an organized governmental act of genocide existed, it suggested that there might have been government officials and other people who acted "with genocidal intent." Only a court could make that determination, it said.

Many prominent politicians and academics have condemned the U.N. commission for its refusal to brand the tragic events in Sudan as constituting genocide. Though I can understand their dismay, I feel that the U.N. commission made a wise, if not popular, decision.

The term genocide was devised by Samuel Lemkin in the 1940’s to describe “a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” In creating the word genocide, Lemkin was attempting to give a specific label to the phenomenal crimes of the Holocaust. By all accounts, he was successful. Genocide was quickly adapted into popular usage and came to describe the routinized destruction of specific national and ethnic groups.

In recent years, Lemkin’s “word” has taken on unintended meanings as it has been used by policymakers to describe widespread violence against civilian populations. While I think it is of the utmost importance to capture the horrors that occur when a state makes war against its people (or against those of another state), such descriptions must be distinguished from act of genocide. In my mind, genocide is a crime that’s magnitude far exceeds that of massive slaughter. Tainted by fanatical racism, genocide represents the potential elimination of entire cultural and language groups—a loss to human civilization that has implications that extend far beyond physical death.

Getting back to Sudan, I do not think that the atrocities in Darfur constituted genocide. While I agree (with the U.N. commission) that the actions of Bashir et al. entailed violence on par with genocide, I think they took a bold step in making a distinction between tremendous slaughter and the systematic extermination of an entire national/cultural group.

Samantha Power’s book, “A Problem From Hell” influenced this post. I would recommend it to anyone interested in genocide.

Representative Government?

By Byron LaMasters

I'm pleased that the Iraqi elections were completed without widespread violence, however, I fear that the National Assembly will hardly be representative of the Iraqi people. Via Juan Cole are some Zogby Poll results:

Sunni Arabs who say they will vote on Sunday: 9% Sunni Arabs who say they definitely will not vote on Sunday: 76% Shiites who say they likely or definitely will vote: 80% Kurds who say they likely or definitely will vote: 56%

What would be the American equivalent of such results? Juan Cole adds more:

On the other hand, if the turnout is as light in the Sunni Arab areas as it now appears, the parliament/ constitutional assembly is going to be extremely lopsided. It would be sort of like having an election in California where the white Protestants all stayed home and the legislature was mostly Latinos, African-Americans and Asians.

Iraqi Elections

By Jim Dallas

Polls are slated to close in about 75 minutes (at 8 a.m. Houston time, or 5 p.m. Baghdad time).

Turnout is high in some places, low in others. There were several cowardly bombings in Baghdad, as well as other acts of violence.

Will the elections produce a clear winner? Juan Cole points to a poll that shows the UIA (the group associated with, et alia, moderate Shi'a clerics) to have a large plurality, but not a majority.

Nonetheless, perhaps the biggest issue for most Iraqis is the one that's not on the ballot: whether the U.S. should disengage.

P.S. Don't expect results any time soon. We're gonna have us a good ol' fashioned American-style election, with weeks worth of counting, accusations about accounting, possible recounts, etc.

Securing the blessings of liberty

By Jim Dallas

This new article in the occasionally-respectable New Republic is really all I have to say about why I am a dippy good-government liberal. Southern Nigeria may be as close to Hobbes' state of nature as we're likely to see these days (OK, except perhaps in Iraq or Afghanistan-outside-of-Kabul).

We've talked a lot about "Reform Democrats" around here; but sometimes it's worth keeping in mind that by world standards, America is already a pretty honest, virtuous, and efficient country. And I would tend to think that most everybody ought to be in favor of keeping it that way.

(Also worth pondering: should we increase our foreign aid budget? Would it be more effective and sincere than piecemeal efforts by multinational corporations? Or merely run into the same difficulties; to wit, corruption and a lack of security?)

The Manchurian Candi-debt

By Jim Dallas

Atrios is beating the foreign debt horse again. And this Kos diary seems to make things seem like they're ready to rumble.

My understanding is that the Chinese central bank's motive in buying so many U.S. bonds stems from the peg between the RMB and the dollar, and the likelihood that the failure to prop up the dollar would result in massive unemployment in China (or so I've been told). So it's not so much inspired James Bond-ian evil Chinese scheming (remember Goldfinger - the Chinese trying to destroy the U.S. dollar by irradiating our gold supply!) as it is political realism.

Nonetheless, it seems like we're being driven into a macroeconomic trainwreck by technocrats on both sides of the Pacific.

The Previous Wars on Terrorism

By Jim Dallas

For the younger readers, a brief reminder that terrorism has been an issue in politics since at least the 1950s, when Puerto Rican terrorists shot up Congress and tried to kill Harry Truman.

Some observers have noted the parallels between the 9/11 hi-jackings and earlier hi-jackings in the 1960s; and we now learn that the 9/11 scenario was actually considered by government terrorism experts as early as 1972.

(Additionally, we learn, the United Nations has been ignoring terrorism for just as long).

Mandela speaks out on HIV/AIDS

By Zach Neumann

Nelson Mandela once again displayed the courage and resolve that made him famous. The NY Times reports:

Nelson Mandela, who has devoted much of his life after leaving South Africa's presidency to a campaign against AIDS, said Thursday that his son had died of the disease in a Johannesburg clinic. The son, Makgatho L. Mandela, 54, had been seriously ill for more than a month, but the nature of his ailment had not been made public before his death on Thursday. At a news conference in the garden of his Johannesburg home, the elder Mr. Mandela said he was disclosing the cause of his son's death to focus more attention on AIDS, which is still a taboo topic among many South Africans. To keep the illness secret would wrongly imply that it is shameful, he said. "That is why I have announced that my son has died of AIDS," he said. "Let us give publicity to H.I.V./AIDS and not hide it, because the only way to make it appear like a normal illness like TB, like cancer, is always to come out and say somebody has died because of H.I.V./AIDS, and people will stop regarding it as something extraordinary."

I am glad to see prominent African leaders being upfront about the HIV/AIDS crisis. I hope that Mandela’s behavior will inspire others to take a more personal approach to victims.

Where's James Dobson when you actually need him?

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

As much as I disagree with and am totally creeped out by James Dobson and his ilk in the Christian Right, I have to give them props for being able to raise huge amounts of money for their causes. you know, things like gay bashing and fundamentally altering the Constitution to take away freedoms. But they do raise money.

So where is the Christian Right and where is their money to help out with tsunami relief. Digby has a listing of several Christian Right Web sites that, as of today, still have nothing about where to send money or to donate anything. I mean, come on, a disaster of Biblical proportions, these guys should be all over this. The only person on the Christian Right I've heard mention anything about the tsunami was glad it killed so many gay Swedish people. What the hell?

Before I totally come off as a hypocrite because I haven't really mentioned anything about where to send donations (or send cash as our Dear Leader might say), I just assumed that you're all geeks like me and you play around with goofy Google searches in your spare time. If not, then this should take you where you need to go. I'm sure you've got at least five bucks in your checking account that can be spared for the Red Cross or one of the other relief agencies. I've heard members of the Indonesian govt. claim that 400,000 people lived in one affected area alone and that has been totally destroyed and there is no way to find out if anyone is still alive, so this 155,000 could be way below the mark. Not to mention the untold billions of dollars worth of damage.

This is a guest post from Nathan Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

Who will Lead Iraq?

By Byron LaMasters

Juan Cole brings us the platform of the United Iraqi Alliance, the party most likely to win the upcoming Iraqi elections:

1. A united Iraq - land and people - with full national sovereignty.

2. A timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq.

3. A constitutional, pluralistic, democratic and federally united Iraq.

4. Iraq that respects the Islamic identity of the Iraqi people. The state religion is Islam.

5. Iraq that respects human rights, that does not discriminate on the grounds of sects, religions, or ethnicities, and that preserves the rights of religious and ethnic minorities and protects them against persecution and marginalization.

6. Iraq that provides a climate of peaceful coexistence among Iraqis without preferential treatment for any group.

7. Iraq in which the judiciary is independent and in which justice and equality prevail.

Juan notes two key issues that are perhaps troubling to the Bush administration. First, the platform calls for a specific timetable towards the withdraw of U.S. troops. Later in the platform, Juan mentions that the party promises membership in the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. That suggests the the new Iraqi government would join other Arab nations in non-recognition of Israel until those organizations reached a settlement with Israel. It's certainly worth reading the full post by Juan Cole to understand what sort of policies we can expect from a future Iraq.

Update: Juan Cole