We have Seen the Enemy and He Is Us

Last train from Baghdad
Improbably, an opportunity has arisen in Iraq for the United States to attain two of its most important goals, namely obtaining some legitimacy for the "government" of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and getting American troops out of his country at the same time.
This could be the last international express leaving Baghdad Central Station, and the United States and its armed forces should be on it.
The opportunity arises from a breakdown in negotiations to draw up a status of forces agreement and a so-called security framework, which is an unequal alliance in all but name.
Washington should be dancing in the streets. There could at this point be no better way for American troops to exit Iraq than in response to a request from the Iraqi "government." Contrary to the neocon's promises, the Iraqis did not welcome American troops with flowers, but they might be willing to toss a few in front of U.S. forces as they pull out.
The United States could then withdraw from a failed enterprise with flags flying and drums rolling, maintaining a halfway credible pretense that the American nation did not lose the war in Iraq. American policymakers are not likely to do better than that.
At the same time, the Maliki "government" in Baghdad has a heaven-sent opportunity to acquire what it needs most, namely some legitimacy. So long as it is propped up by American troops, it will remain in the eyes of almost all Iraqis as acquiescing in a foreign and non-Muslim occupation of a Muslim country, a 21st century equivalent of the Vichy regime in France that collaborated with the Nazi occupation forces during World War II.
But if the Maliki government ordered the Americans out, it would suddenly begin to look like a real Iraqi government. That is far from enough to restore a state in Iraq, but it would be a step in the right direction.
There is little doubt that if a referendum were held in Iraq on sending the Americans home, it would win in a landslide. Iraqi politicians know where their public is on this issue, and like politicians everywhere they want to swim with the tide.
Moreover, some seem to sense that the Americans' time in Iraq is ending if not over. As usual, the Desert Fox, Moqtada Sadr, is making all the right moves. He is positioning himself as leader of all Iraqi resistance to the American occupation, not just head of a Shiite faction.
By welcoming Iraqi troops -- many of whom are his militiamen -- into areas he controls but fighting the Americans, Sadr is splitting his opposition. Most importantly, he is maintaining his credentials as the Iraqi leader least willing to condone a continued occupation, thereby gaining that decisive quality, legitimacy.
If the Iraqi government orders American troops out, the result would be a win-win situation. America would win, and so would Iraq. In fact, it would be a win-win outcome, and there's the rub. The third winner would be Iran. A Shiite-dominated Iraq free of American occupation would have a close relationship with Iran. In fact, in order to defend itself in a nasty neighborhood Iraq would probably conclude a formal alliance with Iran.
The Bush administration's response should be a rapprochement with Iran. After all, the United States' real enemy is not any state but the non-state forces of Fourth Generation War. But that is not how the Bush administration will view the matter.
On the contrary, faced with the possibility of an Iranian strategic victory, courtesy of the American troops who overthrew Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the U.S. government is likely to take the fool's way out, escalation. Inside the White House bubble, the argument for attacking Iran might become irresistible, driven as it would be by panic.
The outcome of such folly could very well include the loss of the American army now in Iraq, not to mention another doubling in the price of oil. As usual under the second-worst president in American history -- Woodrow Wilson still ranks No. 1 -- we have seen the enemy, and he is us.
All the U.S. government has to do to get out of Iraq with some dignity while strengthening the government it installed there is to push that government into ordering U.S. forces home. That should be easy enough; what intransigence in the ongoing negotiations cannot achieve a few million Swiss francs should certainly manage. Instead, the Bush administration will refuse to board the last train out of the station, then blow up the railroad. If it were happening to someone else, it would all be comical.

Some Thoughts of a Layman on Economics

Historically, it is no accident that excessive consumption has profoundly permeated our culture. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), developed by Simon Kuznets in 1941 and the leading economic indicator for measuring the health and prosperity of national economies, is virtually useless in achieving its putative objective. Defined as “the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a given country in a given period of time”, GDP results in economic policies that are formulated to ensure the maximum growth of GDP from year to year. To reduce the concept of GDP to its simplest terms, an economy is defined as healthy only if people consume more.

Forming the basis for many other economic measurements, it weakens their usefulness. For example, when comparing national debt or tax revenue to previous time periods or to other countries, the methodology requires using the ratio of these amounts to GDP because total tax revenues and debt are meaningless without comparing them to the wealth of a country.

Alarmingly, the rate of growth as measured by the GDP has risen by 261% since 1972 based on the current value of the American dollar. The implications for pollution waste, global warming, water, energy are directly related to the growth in consumption.

By only measuring consumption, GDP is rife with flaws that completely undermine its value as a measurement of human well-being financially or otherwise. Consider the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989 in Prince William Sound where ten million gallons of crude oil were spilt. Estimated total costs of recovery from this disaster were US$7 billion and included cleanup costs, loss of vessel, loss of cargo, salvage costs, fines, penalties, insurance payouts and legal costs. In addition, it is impossible to measure the loss of 33,126 birds, 3,000 sea otters, and the impact on bears, whales, sea lions, salmon and a myriad of other animals.

Every single dollar spent on the Exxon Valdez disaster would have contributed to the GDP as every expense reflected the consumption of a good or service. In other words, US$7 billion was part of the” total market value of all final goods and services produced within a given country [U.S.].” The GDP was boosted by the disaster but there were no benefits to a single citizen of the U.S. (unless you want to count the employment of people in the industries which were part of the recovery in which case you would have to define the US$3 trillion spent on the war and occupation of Iraq as a benefit to society). Referred to as negative counting which includes divorce, cigarettes, alcohol, and automobile accidents, it artificially boosts the value of the GDP without providing any benefits.

As well, GDP fails to reflect the distribution of income in society or who is doing the consuming. Despite the fact that the GDP has been continuously rising over the previous decade, the gap between the rich and poor has widened. In fact, Simon Kuznets predicted income equality for both poor and rich countries with his inverted U-shaped curve. His explanation for the growing inequality in countries with increasing wealth resulted from a shift from agricultural to industrial sectors.

One of the measurements used to calculate the distribution of income is the Gini Coefficient which ranges from zero (perfect equality) to one (all wealth is concentrated in one person). In 1967, the Gini Coefficient was .394 in the U.S. whereas in 2001, it was .466. To emphasize the inefficacy of the GDP, it must be noted that although the United States has the highest GDP among all nations, the United States has the highest Gini Coefficient among thirty of the wealthiest countries.

Using linear regression least-squares analysis comparing the Gini Coefficient to GDP, the regression coefficient for the years between 1992 and 2001 is .679 which shows a fairly strong linear relationship. In other words, as the GDP increased, the gap between the rich and poor increased.

A very significant deficiency in the GDP is the failure to incorporate externalities into its calculation. Externalities are costs that are excluded from the price but paid for either by society or people who suffered as a result of production. Externalities include damage to the environment, health costs borne by those who suffer from the lack of health and safety measures in the workplace or toxic substances used in production or that result from production and depletion of natural resources.

Development of alternatives to the GDP began in 1989 but have been routinely ignored by political leaders and captains of industry inasmuch as GDP does not measure pollution, depletion of resources, or inequitable distribution of income. Recognition of these flaws would pressure the government to adopt policies that actually benefited all members of society and respected the environment.

One of these alternatives is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) which incorporates the following factors: income distribution index, value of household work and parenting, value of higher education, value of volunteer work, cost of crime, loss of leisure time, cost of underemployment, cost of household pollution abatement, cost of automobile accidents, cost of water pollution, cost of air pollution, loss of wetlands, loss of farmland, loss of primary forests, depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, carbon dioxide emissions damage, and costs of ozone depletion.

Comparing the variations in the GDP to GPI from 1982 to 2004 reveals the extent to which incorporating factors related to the quality of life for everyone varies the outcome.
Richard Nixon (1970): “Our gross domestic product will increase $500 billion in the next years.”

Year GDP GPI

1982 +4.0% +1.2% Ronald Reagan

1983 +8.7% +4.2%

1984 +11.2% -1.2%

1985 +7.3% +2.3%

1986 +5.7% +0.9%

1987 +6.2% -1.9%

1988 +7.7% +0.6%

1989 +7.5% +1.3% G.H.W. Bush

1990 +5.8% +0.6%

1991 +3.3% -0.8%

1992 +5.7% -0.3%

1993 +5.0% +1.3% Bill Clinton

1994 +6.2% +0.3%

1995 +4.6% +3.8%

1996 +5.7% +1.9%

1997 +6.2% +0.5%

1998 +5.3% +2.2%

1999 +6.0% +5.4%

2000 +5.9% +1.0%

2001 +3.2% -3.9% George Bush

2002 +3.4% +3.5%

2003 +4.7% +1.3%

2004 +6.6% +2.5%

Average +5.9% +1.1%

An average growth rate of 5.9 in the GDP would be considered a healthy expansion of the economy while a growth rate of 1.13% in the GPI would be considered very poor. In fact, a recession is considered to be two consecutive quarters of negative growth and there were five years of negative growth in the GPI. Business and political leaders would be confronted with a formidable challenge if they were forced to explain the contrast in these two measurements and why they have not implemented policies to correct the problems exposed by the GPI. A genuine answer would divulge the synergistic relationship between big business and government.

New Danger Ahead in Iraq

It is not all going very well in Iraq, but we did not notice because we looked at the race for the Presidency of the USA to observe the effects of Barack Obama’s trip to the Near East and Europe. Renewed increase of violence caught our attention. What’s going wrong?
The Voice of Iraq – Aswat Alraq had some of the answers.

BAGHDAD, July 26 (VOI) – A parliamentarian from the Iraqi National List (INL) on Saturday said that the delay in passing the provincial council elections law does not serve the interests of the country or the political process.
"We, the Iraqi National List, will vote again for the law inside the parliament because we believe that it is not in the interest of the country or the political process to delay it," Izzat al-Shabandar told Aswat al-Iraq- Voices of Iraq- (VOI).
"If the law is passed against by the parliament, it will be a success for the political process. If not, the Iraqi people will have to take a stance on it," the parliamentarian noted.
The INL holds 20 seats in the 275-member parliament.
On Tuesday, the Iraqi parliament, with the approval of 127 deputies out of 140 who attended the session, passed the law on provincial council elections, which includes an article postponing the elections in the city of Kirkuk sine die.
Lawmakers from the Kurdistan Coalition (KC), the second largest bloc with 53 out of a total 275 seats, had withdrawn from the session in protest against Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani's decision to have a secret balloting over article 24 of the law, pertaining to the status of Kirkuk. Balloting over all the other paragraphs of the law, however, was open.
On Wednesday, the presidential board, with the unanimity of President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies Adel Abdelmahdi and Tareq al-Hashimi, rejected the law in a rapid reaction one day after the Iraqi parliament passed it during a session that raised hue and cry over its constitutionality.
The law drew angry reactions from the Kurds, who considered the way the law was passed as a "twisting of the constitution," threatening to use the right of veto, granted by the Iraqi constitution for the presidential board, headed by President Talabani, a Kurd, to reject the law and return it to the parliament for debate.
The local elections should be held by the end of this year. All political blocs agreed on a new law on elections, hoped by the Iraqi government and other political parties to help end violence in the country through containing a number of armed groups into the current political process.
The law on provincial council elections, seen as supplementary to the law on regions and non-regional provinces, specifies the system of government in Iraq, and if applied, a federal system may be established in the country with three separate regions, a call echoed by some Iraqi political parties.

It is not very strange with the Kirkuk question unsolved. The Kirkuk region is oil rich and original Kurdish territory. During the Baath regime Kurds were pressed to leave and Sunni and Baath Arabs came in their places. After the fall of the regime the Kurds came back demanding the ownership of their confiscated houses and properties again. Most Arabs refused and so the conflict came alive. The Kurds want all their territories back. Juan Cole, the astute observer, says: "The conflict between Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk is a crisis waiting to happen." He also cites Al-Hayat, as claiming that not only do the Kurds want to control Kirkuk, an oil-rich province in Iraq's north, but they plan to annex three other provinces where Kurds live: Diyala, Salahuddin, and Ninewa. That's not likely, but they do want Kirkuk, and the vetoed election law would have limited the Kurds' ability to press their gains there.
Of course, that’s very likely, no doubt about that, but there is another question involved too. Like all the states in the Near East has Iraq a Wahabitisch kind of Islam too and this fanatic Arab Sunnis, a minority, are on the side of Al Qaeda in Iraq, most foreign combatants but not all, and the remains are under protection of some sheiks in the West and of course they were most active to take over Kirkuk during the Baath regime while Baath was dominant in their home regions. So, as far as Al Qaeda in Iraq still exists it is there, in the West and in Kirkuk and from there they attack pilgrims, occupiers and government’s institutes with suicide attacks.

SULAIMANIYA, July 30 (VOI) - Thousands of the Sulaimaniya residents on Wednesday staged a demonstration protesting the passage of the provincial council elections law.
"Thousands staged today a peaceful demonstration in separate areas in Sulaimaniya and they gathered in front of the Sulaimaniya province's building at the center of the city," Aswat al-Iraq - Voices of Iraq (VOI) correspondent in the city said.
Local police chief Brigadier Hassan Nouri had said Tuesday tight security measures have been put in place in preparation for a demonstration that is scheduled to take place in Sulaimaniya city condemning the passage of the provincial council elections law.
On Monday, a total of 22 civilians were killed and 150 others were wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up among a crowd of demonstrators, who took to the streets in downtown Kirkuk, condemning the passage of the provincial council elections law, which includes an article postponing the city's elections.
Last July 22, the Iraqi Parliament, with the approval of 127 deputies out of 140 who attended the session, passed the law on provincial council elections.
Last Wednesday, the Presidential Board, with the unanimity of President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies Adel Abdelmahdi and Tareq al-Hashimi, rejected the law in a rapid reaction one day after the Iraqi Parliament passed it during a session that raised hue and cry over its constitutionality
Sulaimaniya, the capital city of Sulaimaniya province, lies 364 km north of the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

A statement from the Iraqi president office branded “passing the law for provincial councils as an unconstitutional violation and against the will of the main second Iraqi constituent (Kurds) and the principle of national accordance”.
The announcement added “president Talabani urged the presidency board not to pass the law”.
The Sadrist bloc holds 30 out of the parliament’s total 275 seats while Kurdish coalition has 53.
Tarzi branded “the walkout of Kurdish lawmakers as a legal right since it did unsettle the quorum”.
Kurds make up one of three main groups, and their boycott of the vote means the bill could be sent back to parliament through a president’s veto.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants the election to take place on October 1, but the Electoral Commission says it will not have time to organize it by then, even with the law in place.
Earlier, Faraj al-Haidari,time was running out to hold polls this year, because the commission needed time to prepare, and decided to postpone them until December.
The law had been held up by a dispute over what to do about voting in multi-ethnic Kirkuk, where a dispute is simmering between Kurds who say the city should belong to the largely autonomous Kurdistan region and Arabs who want it to stay under central government authority.
Arabs and Turkmen believe Kurds have stacked the city with Kurds since the downfall of Saddam in 2003 to try to tip the demographic balance in their favor in any vote. Arabs encouraged to move there under Saddam Hussein's rule fear the vote will consolidate Kurdish power and they sought to postpone it, a proposal Kurdish politicians have rejected.
Parliament decided to postpone the vote and add another article that the Kurds found unacceptable: that each ethnic or sectarian group gets a set allocation of seats and voting is between individual candidates from those groups. Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen get 10 seats each. Minority Christians get two.

"We walked out because of the illegality of this article and because the speaker wanted a secret vote, which is not constitutional," said Fouad Massoum, head of the Kurdish bloc.
Washington has been urging a speedy provincial election, which it sees as a pillar of national reconciliation, but the poll is also proving a potential flashpoint for tensions.

It seems that orthodox muslims are used for the new surge of violence, happily to do it out of their feelings of revenge on the Awakening who defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq. A one-day round-up:

A roadside bomb planted outside the residence of Dawa Party member, Abdulrahman Mohammed Dawood in Zafaraniyah, southeastern Baghdad exploded injuring Dawood and two of his security detail at 11 a.m. Thursday.

Gunmen attacked a checkpoint manned by Awakening Council, a US backed militia, in Adhamiyah at 9 a.m. killing two members. The gunmen used silencers on their weapons, said Iraqi Police.

One unidentified body was found by Iraqi Police, Thursday. It was found in Nidhal Street, central Baghdad.

Nineveh: A suicide car bomber targeted a checkpoint manned by Iraqi Army in al-Intisar neighbourhood, eastern Mosul killing two soldiers, injuring two others.

Diyala: A female suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt targeted an Awakening Council Commander in Baquba, Naeem al-Dulaimi at 3 p.m. Thursday. The explosion, which took place in a car dealership while Dulaimi was checking a car killed him, his two security guards and four civilians, injuring at least twenty four others including women and children. '

The final crisis-to-be is the Sadr vs. Badr one. The Times today suggests that Sadr is weakening:
The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.
Don't believe it. Sadr's rivals, ISCI, don't have anything like the popular base that Sadr has. And underneath Sadr is a volatile mix of neighborhood, local and regional militias, mosques, and economic fiefdoms that won't yield easily to ISCI and Maliki. Perhaps in future fighting, when politics don't serve to gain the unity-state, Sadr's forces are dependent on Iran, however, for arms and cash, Iran may be in the driver's seat.
Just the other day, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps crowed that the United States has failed to establish install an anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, and he's completely right.
So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control. McCain's solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama's solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq. I'm not sure either "plan" will work, but with support of Russia and the European Union Obama has the best papers. McCain is chance less, because what he says is always over strained by his desire to “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…” That’s where Russia - most likely the EU too - is on the side of Iran to guarantee Iran’s safety against foreign threats which can urge Iran to go nuclear.
McCain will love the Iranian nuclear option, because he has by then a clear mandate to start WWIII, bur the Obama-USA, Asia, Russia and Europe are not admiring such a mass destruction of suicidal Republican America and the world.