When Iraq's legislature passed a bill requesting the end of U.S.
military forces in the country recently the problems of a divided sectarian
state emerged; the Shi’a Sunni divide shapes Iraq's political landscape. So a
quick review of the way things are is in order.
The present Iraqi Prime
Minister; dil Abdul-Mahdi al-Muntafiki, is Shi'a and formerly a leader
of an Iran-based Shi'a organization. The last time there was a Sunni leader
with a regime that lasted for a while was the era of Dictator Saddam Hussein.
Interestingly he was a member of the Baath Party invented in Syria. With the
Sunni being a minority in Iraq it takes a dictator to rule. The Shi'a simply
vote for Shi'a and work a de facto theocratic village form of government.
It is plain that the United States cannot withdraw its military forces
because of the infrequent need to intervene for various reasons. When Saddam
Hussein was in power and had his way during the food for oil U.N. sanctions era
50,000 Iraqis died annually because of privations forced on them by the
Dictator. Non-intervention was o.k. with Democrats and the U.N. because of the
corrupt kickbacks to select Euro politicians yet unacceptable to people of
conscience. Ending the regime of the Dictator was necessary. Imposing democracy
was nearly impossible because of the fundamental sectarian divide. A civil war
in Iraq followed helped along by Iran for sectarian reasons. When the U.S.
withdrew its forces under President Obama Isis grew.
The United States failed to support its Kurdish allies recently and that
in turn weakens their position in Iraq for they too are Sunni. That state
emboldens the Shi'a that rightly demands withdrawal of all U.S. military
because they have Iran at their back. Kickbacks and reciprocity to Iraq leaders
help them view the two states practically as one. Americans talk about war with
Iran because of the nuclear weapons program in that country and site numerous
post-1979 reasons for the war aided by historical amnesia pre-1979.
Before 1979 the United States supported the Shah of Iran whom they had
given dictatorial power to through a 1953 coup against the Shi'a Prime Minister.
When the U.S. chose to install and reinforce a de facto Dictator of Iran called
the Shah for 25 years it lost a lot of friends in Iran. Because the United
States has usually had daft political leadership concerning the history of the
region (and of Russia) since then the situation has gotten worse. What would be
helpful would be American political recognition of the true pre-1979 history of
Iranian-American relations; so long as American leadership has bad faith
attitudes toward real rather than amnesiac history of Iranian-American relations
the process of repairing relations will not start. The Bush administration
plans for post-war reconstruction of Iraq demonstrated the usual U.S. incompetence
at understanding history of the region. Probably that hasn't changed much.
Certainly the Obama administration was rash at giving Iran a treaty that
effectively allowed them 20 years of undisturbed infrastructure building and
research for nuclear weapons and then after 25 years the freedom to develop
nuclear weapons. What was lacking from the Obama method was public explanation
to the world that the U.S. recognized the pre-1979 history of Iranian-American
political relations to clear the air of gross misunderstandings.
So what should the U.S. do now? Squaring away the Kurds with greater
security and autonomous real estate in Syria and Iraq if not Turkey would be a
good idea for it is very probable that the United States will look to them
again as proxy warriors and peace police in the area. Yet President Trump
retreated from the effort, perhaps for reasons unknown, and let the Kurds
return to a state of greater political insecurity if not immediate jeopardy
with Turkey swelling even to consider landing troops in Libya as if they were Mussolini’s
fascist forces seeking to expand the lost empire in North Africa.
Democrats are complaining about President Trump ordering a mission to execute the number one Iranian terrorist who was apparently in Iraq to foment attacks on Americans, without telling the Congress, such as House Intelligence Chairman Rep Adam Schiff about the mission or asked for permission first. Evidently Democrats feel that Rep. Schiff or Senator Schumer should have been given the chance to put their foot down and veto the reckless American adventurism or other Trump ventures that could have been done with collusion from Russians or simply as distractions from the effort to defend U.S. national security through the pivotal impeachment process. There might have been someone from the National Security Council that overheard a call where President Trump was expecting a quid pro quo from some foreign leader if he did or din't act to execute Iran's top terrorist organizer. Without Rep. Schiff's informant staff being informed we will never know. Iran has a three party historical course of political evolution that need be carefully balanced. When the civilian sector and populism had finally taken charge with an elected parliament and prime minister, overcoming monarchy and military the United States staged a coup to restore the absolute monarchy. Iranians of the popular front led by radical Muslims have tended toward antipathy toward the United States since. They have little reason to trust the United States with its proven record of snuffing their elected government when it arises to restore capitalist-friendly autocrats. When the military sector works with either royals or radical clerics, who have substantial popular support, it is very difficult in the trialectical process to bring up cherries for a civilian led jackpot in the political evolution. Each time there is a new alignment the United States tends to apply counter-force like a large log roller spinning in an opposite direction on the log from the new Iranian political rolling champion at that makes it tough for Iranians. While Iran poses threats to the Middle East and searches for ways to annihilate Sunni political power and presents threats to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States it would be useful to keep the large picture in mind of trying to help Iran balance it's one-armed bandit of political fortune on the civilian political winning cherries of jackpot. Iran like most nations hasn't the circumstantial chance to simply seek its own gyroscopic civilian-led upright leadership as it might have in the past with a paucity of global powers jostling its policies about. The natural selection tends to be toward the military-clerical complex. Post-Soviet Russia was also challenged to move from its traditional three-part balance of power between the KGB, military and communist party to a peaceful yet strong civilian led government. In a sense that is what Present Putin with his Presidential super-powers represents; it could have been worse. Certainly the Democrat Party has worked very hard to poison U.S. relations with Russia.
The drone missile killing of Iran's top fanatic terrorist was reported first perhaps, by the BBC last night with several other networks following along in the usual feeding frenzy to treat the story from one biased perspective or another. Democrats of course lined up at NBC, CNN, U.S.A. Today and other party organs to spin the sudden trophy quality demise of the head of the
Quds force of snake-head biters from a view pro or antipathetic to the Trump
administration action.
I wasn't going to say anything about the military action, yet listening to the coverage thought it might be useful to make an objective opinion. The administration's action will drive up the price of oil and be of service to various red states' government's revenue streams.
The decision of an Iranian
general to visit Iraq and coordinate a proxy attack on the U.S. Embassy in
Baghdad was breath-takingly dumb of course. He may have felt that Iraq was
already in-the-bag for Iranian hegemonic ambitions.
It is worth remembering that it
was the Eisenhower administration that started the Iranian-American problems
when it sponsored a coup to get rid of the democratic government and install an
Emperor. The Emperor's secret police force tortured or stalked Iranians around
the globe and he was a tool of the United States. The Shah also had goals to
rule the Middle East not unlike those of the silly Shi'a leadership of
Iran.
Though the original sin of the
coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh occurred in 1953 and a lot of water and
hate has passed under the historical bridge since, when U.S. policy makers
think about Iran they should be aware that the United States started the
popular conflict and as a leading dance partner it should also be the one to
end it. Ending the conflict may be difficult because of the idiocy of the
broadcast media that reports what other people do and follows up with a
politically correct narrative to reinforce their position; they usually have
wrong points of view on numerous topics and politicians tend to reinforce the
idiocy.
Before the Shah Iran had
brought in an American economic adviser and the bi-lateral relations were
actually good. Then Iran nationalized the oil fields that were effectively
owned by the British in order to get some of the profit too- that was the way
people renegotiated contracts or agreements in the era, and the Eisenhower
administration worried about the domino theory prevalent in the 1950s regarding
communism pre-emptively intervened with the coup to nip their fear of a
communist takeover in the bud. That policy decision is still costing the United
States today and may cost even more in the future.
With a radicalized Iran
(paradoxically it was western leftists who supported the Iranian revolution to
get rid of the Shaw before Ayatollah Khomeini took power and swiftly purged the
left) it may be challenging to end the conflict in a peaceable way though that
is highly desirable. Iran should lose its nuclear weapons program. The United
States hasn't any need for anything in the ancient nation-kingdom against peace
since Iran is way off the mainstream course of modern trade and commerce; it
hasn't got good Pacific, Atlantic or even Mediterranean waterfront property.
Iran's oil is also a declining commodity with the major automakers moving full
ahead into electric cars and physicists developing better batteries, solar
panels, super conductors and a wealth of micro-circuit technology.
Though it was a good idea to
end the activities of General Soleimani it would be a better thing to find
some way to normalize relations with the anti-communist Iranian Muslim
Republic.
Some Americans are unhappy at the necessity to relitigate the end of the Cold War. The end was res judicata and stare decisis, and then the Democrats stepped in to restructure and renew conflict with Russia as a proxy for Cold War. One must win the peace instead of backsliding into Cold War. President Clinton bungled the restructuring work with Boris Yeltsin; a feminine C.I.S. or sis was made while the Ukraine and Crimea were wrested from the weak sister Russia. Eventually Yeltsin anointed Vladimir Putin and a stronger Russia emerged.
After
the end of the Cold War the most apparent lesson one may learn concerning
bi-lateral U.S.-Russian relations is the limit of U.S. political intelligence
and the failure to adapt. President Reagan experienced shock and resistance in
his administration when he sought to eliminate all U.S. and Soviet nuclear
weapons. Democrats today are about as anti-Russian as were old-line anti-Soviet
political warriors. They have shown an inability to adapt or even to recognize
the serious effort Russia put into reform and transition toward democracy and
free enterprise. After a few more comments I will repost a paper I wrote
concerning the Russian Super-Presidential powers. The next President after
Vladimir Putin will inherit those powers.
The
Russian Super-Presidency emerged something like the way war-time powers of
Lincoln or F.D.R. emerged to address critical domestic and foreign issues.
President Putin seems occasionally amused by the U.S. political failure to
recognize or even support the substantial changes Russia has gone through to
try to build a new nation dedicated to the proposition that all men and women
are created equal and are deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness with an equal say in government through democracy. In order to reform
and construct existing institution in Russia and to keep the peace emergency
powers of the President became codified. Some day perhaps those powers will be
reformed and reduced too.
The
fundamental errors the U.S.A. has made about Russia involve a failure to
accurate understand Russian and European history the past thousand years. Half
of the Ukraine with the border on the Dnepr River and the Crimea belonging to Russia
were fundamental historical requisites for the Russian state separated from the
Soviet Union. Ambitions for land fueled by Western Europe made that a bone of
contention worthy of reigniting the Cold War. The policy has driven the
Russians to stronger relations with foreign nations somewhat antipathetic to
U.S. international interests. The short-sighted and greedy policy has wrought
significant damage to U.S. economic and environmental interests of the Arctic
region too.
For
the New Year it would be good if the U.S. political establishment developed
more competence in Russian-American relations and recognition of historical and
political geographic interests. Russia as an economic and military ally brings
synergy toward positive resolution of numerous world conflicts. Adverse
relations with Russia fuel the fires of a constellation of conflicts.
Russia and Super-Presidency; Evolving Constitution and
Economics
August 16,
2018
The
Super-presidency arose after the constitutional crisis between President
Yeltsin and the Supreme Soviet in 1993. Yeltsin dismissed the Soviet who
refused to leave. The matter was settled by armed conflict. The sole surviving
institution author; the President made resolutions that formed the basis of a
new constitution and set the parameters for the existence of the new
legislative body, the Duma.
The
President had extraordinary powers. Acting in the role of Caesar and James
Madison simultaneously, President Yeltsin had to create a new state government
within an existing advanced society, rather than for a frontier society as the
author of the U.S. Constitution was able to accomplish with almost unanimous
support from his peers.
Yeltsin
had to get support from certain parties with real power such as rural governors
and oligarchs and that led to some corruption. Yeltsin began a work of reform
in process and trusted in Vladimir Putin to continue the legacy of building a
new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men
are created equal and the chief guardian of the state somewhat more so than
others.
https://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/keynew.htm
Polity IV Country Report 2009-2010
On the
Federal Organs of Power during the Transitional Period
Polozhenie
‘O federal’nykh organakh vlasti na perekhodnyi period’ (Resolution “On the
Federal Organs of Power during the Transitional Period”),” in Iz istorii
sozdania konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii, vol. 4/3, 461-466.
My general
view of the Russian government challenges since 1998...
Russia since
the 1998 financial crisis and default has only slowly yet somewhat steadily
moved toward reform such that a market economy prevails. It was not so many
years ago that Vladimir Putin ended the oligarch domination of the economy and
domination of former Soviet assets that they had taken much of. That order of
oligarch power was regarded as an unfair distribution of wealth, yet was left
somewhat as it was. The economy moved toward liberalization sometimes with
substantial state investment and stimulation.
The process
was advanced by the rise in world oil prices in the 2000s that continued until
the crash following fracking of old oil fields to renew supply. A surfeit of
world oil production made oil dependent states lose much revenue. Alaska in the
United States faced a government budget crisis and Russia too lost nearly half
of its GDP.
If bad
actors are targeted, the principle of mass punishment should not target the
innocent too. The U.S. should encourage Russia to continue developing a market
economy along sound ecological economic principles rather than provide mass
punishment for making Crimea a ninth federal district.
Even so
Russia continued a slower advance toward a market economy though the state held
some major banks and oil companies. It began an income tax of a modest scale
though it had difficulty collecting that. Russia faced many internal and
external challenges before the regime of foreign sanctions began to appear for
international contention to permanently wrest away the Ukraine and Crimea from
Russia.
The second
largest party in Russia is still the communist party. The United Russia party-
by far the largest, is basically a coalition of four formerly separate parties
that joined to beat the communists. The economic and social dynamics of
economic reform is occurring concurrent with reform of government, and
eventually constitutional structures, and stimulation of business and new
infrastructure development. All of that is challenging and expensive. While the
United States and Europe tend to place themselves into a belligerent and
adversarial as possible position comprising something of a threat to Russian
security.
My concern
is that the sanctions and hostile external relationship with Russia will retard
the growth of Russia as a market economy and in the long run solidify less than
free enterprise elements in Russia.
Apparently
Russians have a trust in state run media and state ownership of business
because of historical reasons that lie in the fact that authoritarian or
Tsarist government were the fact of Russia for 1000 years. Only since the end
of the Cold War has Russia had a pluralist government, although a multi-party
Duma/congress existed briefly, shortly before the Bolshevik takeover to end
that and the tsar.
Ronald
Reagan had a policy of constructive engagement with South Africa and that led
to the DeClerk government and end of apartheid. Reagan also ended the Cold War
along with President Gorbachev in part because of hi affable character
engendering trust. The United States should think deeply about its reckless sanctions
on Russia, since they may harm U.S. interests more than Russian, in the long
run.
There is a lot of media reporting of hate crimes against various religions. Maybe the devil is particularly motivated or interested in attacking Christians, Jews, Muslims and theists in general- its difficult to know. What can be known are various statistical surveys of hate crime homicides and who the victims are. Homeless people are by far the number one group homicide victims and the number is rising. In a recent year 155 homeless people were killed by hateful of the homeless, non-homeless tressed individuals usually under the age of 25. All other victims of homicide hate crime added together was just 75. In a nation of 320 million souls, and considering the fact that there are far fewer homeless people than blacks, Jews, white males, queers, Buddhists, Muslims and so forth (actually fewer than one million homeless Americans), the number is alarmingly high. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_victimology Ordinarily people have many disparaging things to say about the homeless. Even in the California homelessness debacle the comparative violence against Jews situation is trivial (although no violence is trivial). There are just about 7 million Jews in the United States and because some have a different appearance in dress, and because some are prosperous and live and worship near slums or dangerous minority populated areas they become easy targets of hate for the simple minded. Of course the liberal media does nothing to discourage the degradation of conservative religious beliefs as pro-atheist promoters of anti-faith atheism, homosexuality, abortion, legal dope and etc. Responsible prosperous Jewish synagogues tend to be frontier clusters in a political era where non-traditional and alien mass migration illegally and cultural values thrown together in a melting pot with clashes inevitable and a foreign non-melting Hispanic culture increasing in size without a substantial Jewish prosyletized cadre of acolytes. So some rudeness toward the prosperous strange Jews-especially from the urban black proletariat with a higher crime rate, lower education level, more gang violence etc occurs- it is not too significant in comparison to the crimes against the homeless. Maybe Jews are one group that does not persecute the homeless yet most of the others find some way to excrete perpetrators of violence even if just a few. Homosexuals in a given year experience perhaps 1700 violent hate crimes (not murders) and that statistically isn't high since there are 11 million declared homosexuals in the U.S.A. and probably more. It would be worth research to discover if the 1700 queer victims of hate crimes of violence were declared homosexuals or simply behavioral ones. The group with the highest number of hate crimes is black Americans. The reasons for that are well known and an evolving condition of U.S. history as the melting pot of solid black is far more influential upon the other colors in the mess. Toleration of race should be simpler to stabilize in the long run than cultural differences such as Islam and Hispanic culture as race can be non-ideological an non-cultural.
With the study of epistemology and logic one should develop a capacity of awareness concerning certainty and uncertainty that keeps one from attributing certainty beyond a given level of probability, generally. Some forms of opinion are not falsifiable because of the limits of human knowledge, so one may be certain to the limits of knowledge concerning propositions regarding God, cosmology, quantum cosmology, what dimensions really are (and how many can actually exist without actually having any substance, etc. without being wrong even if they were incorrect. One expects opinion to have a certain value function and if it serves that purpose it has fulfilled its role.
The Dallas Cowboys are expected to make a coaching change because of their inability to go very far in the playoffs the past decade. There is one practical college football coach who deserves a shot leading the Cowboys; Coach Mike Leach of Washington State and Texas Tech. A winner every place he has gone, and familiar with the Tech pass game that was worked successfully at Washington State too, Mike Leach probably could bring the Texas Tech style passing game- something with offense- to the under-achieving Dallas Cowboys. Jacksonville is another possible landing spot for coach Leach; Jaguar 6th round draft choice quarterback Gardner Minchew's college coach was Mike Leach. Taking a problem team with long-term playoff malaise from its underachieving torpor, and taking a team without the advantages of the big-time teams to win amidst the more advantaged teams is well within Mike Leach's historical record capability. The Dallas Cowboys are not a poor disadvantaged team of course. It would be interesting to see the results if Coach Leach ran rich a while.
