Updates: Obama's War

Update 1: The most recent Gallup poll shows support for Obama's handling of Afghanistan at 35%, and it's really not surprising. Tonight is the third strategy address the President has made (the first was when he was a candidate). Each time, he has: 1. blamed Bush (fair enough the first time or so, but old once you've been in charge for awhile) and 2. tried for something new, claiming it was a restatement of the same strategy. Tonight, he spent the first eleven minutes giving a short synopsis of the history of our involvement since September 11, 2001, the obligatory swipe at the Bush Administration, and a defense of the time the review took (stating that the troop request was not slated until 2010). Obama stated twice that he believes our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that new attacks are being plotted from the border region with Pakistan. He then went on to state that we must strengthen Afghanistan and Pakistan, and prevent Pakistan's fall.

He gave three ways to pursue the new strategy in just 18 months: 1. break the hold of the Taliban in certain regions; secure civilian population centers; increase training of Afghan forces. He believes that we'll be able to then begin withdrawal in July 2011 (this is a purely bogus date - if he truly intends to withdraw 'responsibly,' and only if the on-ground conditions are 'right,' he can not promise this date). 2. Improved civilian and political centers by combating corruption and helping with agricultural development. 3. We will act in Afghanistan with the knowledge that we must prevent the spread of the Taliban further into Pakistan. (One wonders how we do this without moving into Pakistan - something we would need far more than 100K troops for). "We can not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intention is clear." (Sounds a great deal like the Bush doctrine of preemption, laid out at West Point in 2002, to me).

He did give a decent explanation of why he doesn't want to commit to a long-term, nation-building program, leaning on the 'it's not in our national interests' argument, but it's hard to see how that fits in with his statements a few minutes earlier that we owe it to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan to secure them from the Taliban. He then sequed into a statement that an open-ended troop commitment would be too difficult economically (true enough), and that he wants to 'build' our nation (how?). He is clearly committed to extending the idea of a war strategy into all kinds of areas (getting rid of nuclear weapons, setting an example by stopping torture, etc.). Much of these areas have little to do with his Afghanistan policy, and did not add to the speech; rather they detracted from the details of the strategy (of which there was none given barring the troop number and the July 2011 date).

Published earlier:
As all now know, the President will be addressing the nation shortly on his new - new strategy on Afghanistan. The President plans to announce that he will be sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan on an accelerated deployment schedule beginning this month, bringing the total US commitment to just over 100,000 troops. Somehow, he also intends to squeeze blood from a stone, and get the Europeans, who have steadfastly refused his requests to date (barring the additional 500 approved by the UK this week), to make up some of the difference between the 30,000 and the 44,000 requested by Gen. McChrystal. The NPR live blog from West Point can be followed here, and live streaming is here. HuffPo states that while the President won't pick a particular exit date, he plans to state the commitment will not be 'open-ended.' In the press conference with Gibbs today, vague statements about a draw-down within three years ("well before the end" of the President's "first term") were made.

UPDATE: Betrayal

UPDATE 4: One woman's testimony from Baharestan Square yesterday:

UPDATE 3: Posting corrections. If you were puzzled by the fact that several paragraphs jumped around in the main post, or that font mysteriously changed, I apologize.  I'm not sure what happened with all of that, but it should be corrected now.

UPDATE 2: Neda Soltana's family has been forced to cancel her funeral and mourning displays, and have now been forced out of their home.

UPDATE 1: The invitation has (finally) been rescinded.

 On June 3 of this year, the Institute for Science and  International Security, (ISIS) published on its website Nuclear Iran published the following:  'The hottest ticket in many a capital city is an invitation to the U.S. embassy’s July 4 picnic. This year, as the NYT reported yesterday, the State Department has instructed all embassies and consulates that “they may invite representatives from the government of Iran” to their Independence Day celebrations. These are typically casual affairs featuring traditional American picnic food--burgers, hot dogs, ice cream and informal mingling. So long as the meat is halal, Iranian guests should feel right at home.'   This was  Real Politik at its best.  Voice of America followed up with a  report, as did the Telegraph, nicknaming it 'hot dog diplomacy.'  'Robert Wood, a State Department spokesman, said a cable went out to US diplomatic missions last week advising that Iranian diplomats "may be invited" to their July 4 receptions. "We review these types of invitations every year, and a decision was made this year to invite officials from Iran," Mr Wood said. "This is very much in line with our policy of trying to engage the Iranian government," he said.'

Today, the TimesOnline (UK) published reports of what looks to be the final crushing of the Iranian protest movement, and it was brutal and ugly.

'It was a far cry from the massive demonstrations of last week. Today, just a few hundred protesters converged on Baharestan Square, opposite the Iranian Parliament, and they were brutally repulsed. It was an exercise in courageous futility, not a contest. Thousands of riot police and militiamen flooded the area. They used teargas, batons and overwhelming force. Helicopters hovered overhead. Nobody was allowed to stop or to gather, let alone exercise their constitutional right to protest. ... Twitter was flooded with lurid messages. “They pull away the dead — like factory — no human can do this,” said one. “They catch people with mobile — so many killed today — so many injured,” said another. “In Baharestan we saw militia with axe chopping ppl like meat — blood everywhere,” said a third. ... All that can be said for certain is the regime has finally recaptured the streets through strength of numbers and the unrestrained use of violence. Thirty years after the Iranian revolution it no longer rules with consent, but with military might, and it is cracking down with all means at its disposal. “Neither the system nor the people will give in to pressures at any price,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared on state-controlled television today. “I will insist on implementation of the law.” Saeed Mortazavi, an Iranian prosecutor notorious for his abuse of prisoners, has been put in charge of arresting and investigating dissidents. Mr Mortazavi has a long record of involvement in cases of torture, illegal detention and extracting false confessions, Human Rights Watch said. “The leading role of Saeed Mortazavi in the cracksdown of Tehran should set off alarm bells,” it said.'

In a separate report, TimesOnline discussed the background of Saeed Mortazavi: 'Relatives of several detained protesters have confirmed that the interrogation of prisoners is now being headed by Saaed Mortazavi, a figure known in Iran as “the butcher of the press”. He gained notoriety for his role in the death of a Canadian-Iranian photographer who was tortured, beaten and raped during her detention in 2003. ... Mr Mortazavi has also led a crackdown in Tehran that has seen women arrested for wearing supposedly immodest clothing. Earlier this year he oversaw the arrest and trial of Roxana Saberi, the American-Iranian journalist sentenced to eight years for spying, and his name has appeared on the arrest warrants of prominent reformists rounded up since the unrest started, such as Saeed Hajarian, a close aide of Mohammad Khatami, the reformist former President. With more than 600 people now having been arrested, including dozens of journalists, many fear the worst.'

As well they should.  According to the TimesOnline (and what I and others are hearing from Iranians) in an interview with a student in hiding, the student protestors are begging for moral and other assistance from the West.  In particular, they long to know that America supports them and will put pressure on Iran.  How far that pressure can or should go is something of an unknown right now.  But it is shameful to the country that beckons the world to freedom and democracy that we are evidencing such reluctance to even modestly complain about the brutality of a regime which makes claims to leadership and democracy.

'"But what do they do about it in the West? Some of the politicians behave as if nothing special has happened. One says the nuclear negotiation is the priority and another one politely asks the masters to deal better with the people. And some apologists pretend to speak on behalf of the people of Iran and ask the Western governments not to get involved in the condemnation of killings, calling it “interference.” ... Every day I hear of friends being taken away. They vanish without trace. I have no knowledge of what they are going through, for they have cut off the phones in the prisons. I fear a huge bloodbath is on the way and the world better react now, as soon as possible, before it is too late. Experience has shown us that if you appease these demons they will become ever more outrageous but if you stand up to them firmly, they will draw back like cowards. The West must show a reaction to the human rights abuses that are taking place here; otherwise the people of Iran will lose all faith in the claims of the West that they truly respect human rights."'

This same kind of plea was evidenced in the question put to President Obama at yesterday's press conference by Nico Pitney from the Huffington Post.  We now know that this was a planted question, and that there was a second planted questioner at the press conference.  The HufPo question turned out to be so on target, and disquieting to the president however, that he may abandon this idea is the future.

'THE PRESIDENT: "Since we're on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post."
Q: "Thank you, Mr. President." 
THE PRESIDENT: "Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"
Q: "Yes, I did, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?"
THE PRESIDENT: "Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance -- a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election. And so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government. What we can do is to say unequivocally that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with peaceful dissent, that spans cultures, spans borders. And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles. I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it."'

How wrong you are, Mr. President, how wrong you are.  Once a government murders, disappears, violently oppresses, tortures, rapes and disenfranchises the majority of its own population, it's too late for them to take a peaceful path.  Hot dog diplomacy is not going to cut it.  Letting these invitations stand is a disgrace to this entire country, and to the brave Iranians who are suffering and dying while you are keeping your cool.  You trample the very notion of fighting for that freedom by doing so.  We don't have to 'meddle' or 'interfere' in Iran's internal politics to express our utter disgust and repulsion at what is happening.  And dis-inviting diplomats to a picnic, who represent such an animalistic regime, isn't the same thing as refusing all diplomatic contact or engagment where our interests are at stake.  But to not even acknowledge extreme displeasure with a regime, and to not use the weight of diplomatic displeasure (as Britain has done), is callous and a betrayal of those fighting for their liberty.  This administration said it wanted to employ more 'soft power,' using diplomatic tools.  Now that it has the opportunity to fully employ those tools, it refuses to do so. That is why cartoons, like the one at the head of this post are appearing on Iranian blogs and Facebook pages.  That is why the question posed by Mr. Pitney was worded as it was.  That is why the student interviewed by the TimesOnline said "Some of the politicians behave as if nothing has happened at all."  Because the one man in the world, who above all others, must stand for freedom and liberty is standing for nothing.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Ayatollah You So
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran