Welcome to khan.org

Hagel Is Right

No, I'm not talking about dialectic theory.

I'm talking about Republican Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, who was quoted as telling Condoleeza Rice, "I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this President represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." (video here)

He's right because Bush is basically proposing we increase troop strength by over 20,000.

He's right because rather than coming up with a plan like Bush Sr. did to build a broad coalition to go into Iraq including Arab forces from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, surprise surprise, the troop increase is solely US forces.

He's right because "radical Islamic extremists" (a redundant phrase, but I guess it sounds good on TV) are growing in strength and gaining new recruits because it's a lot easier to get a "IED party" going when you're bombing the "American infidels" than it is to convince a muslim extremist to kill another muslim extremist.

He's right because we lack all credibility when we appear to be in Iraq for the same reason he ascribes Al Qaeda to be there: the "better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions."

He's right because what is most likely the best strategy to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program is to allow Iran's parliament to impeach Ahmadinejad (they recently collected 38/72 signatures required to do so-- so the moderates are on the march in Iran already)-- not to send 20,000 troops to Iraq.

He's right because Iraq was not a staging ground for 9/11, nor were any of the attackers an Iraqi citizen. So using 9/11 to justify the Iraq war is a cynical attempt to manipulate the fears of the American people.

He's right because if "only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it", it's curious that this plan requires the deployment of 20,000 US troops to Baghdad.

He's right because you can not put out a fire by drowning it with gasoline.

He's right because deploying 20,000 troops is going to take time, and getting the Iraqis to come in and take their place is going to take even more, ("To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November") which means that it will be US troops who will initially be "setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents."

He's right because Bush is proposing putting US forces into the middle of inter-clan and inter-sect violence. I wonder how successful the military rules of engagement will be to finally answer, once and for all, who should have succeeded Mohammed-- Abu Bakir, or Ali.

He's right because the idea that "reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible" mistakes cause for effect. Reconciliation results in the reduction of violence (not the other way around), and Shia and Sunni extremists have been in disagreement for over a thousand years. So for these guys to stop the violence, they have to come to a point of agreement. Right now, the only point of agreement they have is that a target painted on a guy in a US uniform is nominally better than one painted on each other.

He's right because what Al Qaeda in Iraq needs is not more targets in shiny tanks to shoot at, but an intelligence network that is willing to inform upon and undermine the trust relationships that Al Qaeda currently exploits to run free reign in and around Baghdad. Guerilla warfare is based upon the principle of an asymmetric strategy. (See: David vs. Goliath. Hint: David wins) This is where the parallels of this war to the Vietnam war really strike home.

He's right because we're distracted in Iraq while Osama is still MIA somewhere (presumably) in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

He's right because if Iran or Syria (rightfully) take his speech as a broadsides against their national security interests, we'll soon be fighting wars in Iraq, Iran and Syria while Osama goes uncaught and unpunished, while humanitarian crises continue in Africa, while Kim Jong Il solidifies his stranglehold on the Korean province and threatens Japan with nuclear weapons.

He's right because it's absurd to argue that the Iraqi people are so uninterested in their own futures that if the United States were to begin a gradual troop withdrawl, that they would give up and "yield the future of that country to the extremists". The fact of the matter is that we have already "st[oo]d with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom", and now it's time for them to increasingly stand on their own and with allies that are not exclusively those of the United States.

He's right because we have a President who states that "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship", while not realizing the irony of flying into an aircraft carrier in the Gulf and declaring the end to "major combat operations" in Iraq while standing under a massive banner entitled "Mission Accomplished".

He's right because the ideological bullshit Bush is spouting when he says "throughout our nation's history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed" sounds good in a speech, but when we consider exactly what kind of redemption we got from our faith in freedom in Vietnam, we realize that what we need is an educated populace that can stand up to its government and say "enough is enough".

He's right because it is the responsibility of our media to "ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering." It's unfortunate that he sees the depiction of reality as some kind of grand conspiracy by "the enemy" to control US television programming. I would draw significantly greater comfort if the President realized that his failed foreign policy is what is adversely affecting our national security, and that he would do well to avoid entering into a quagmire of epic proportions.

Look, the moment we leave Iraq, we're going to remove a huge distraction in Iraq, allowing the Iraqi people to step up for themselves and clean the mess we left behind. Because much like Borat stumbling around in an antique shop, the longer we stay, the greater mess we are likely to create.

I'm far from believing that immediately pulling out of Iraq is going to solve all of the region's problems. In fact, it will create a massive problem for our allies in the region, principally Israel and Turkey.

But this administration has not credibly demonstrated that it has the right plan to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq to fight for a likely-impossible victory which was likely whittled away long ago with the flawed reasons for going in, in the first place, not to mention mistake after mistake the administration committed thereafter.

---

Be generous, share: Digg This! | Add to Del.icio.us | Have you Reddit?| Stumble It!

---

---

Why I'm Not Ordering an iPhone (and neither should you)

Today's blog is dedicated to my friend Gavin.

In his blog today, he writes:

"People are arguing about its features (or lack thereof); others are frothing at the mouth in anticipation so vigorously that they'll probably need to be hosed off before they're let back in the house... (Candidly, I'm probably closer to the second category than the first.) ... I'm ordering the 8GB version."

Now far be it from me to dissuade anyone from parting with their hard-earned cash by buying an Apple product. In fact, holding off on a technology purchase often doesn't make sense to me for other reasons I won't get into now. In fact, I have been accused of going so far as to send out "a fair amount of tauntin'", as Gavin puts it, for those who hold off on making a technology purchase.

So I suppose it will come as a bit of a surprise (and role reversal) for me to say that after some reflection, I am not quite so "frothing at the mouth" over the iPhone.

Yes, the iPhone the best thing that happened to mobile computing technology since they ditched clay tablets for papyrus.

Yes, the iPhone may very well obviate the need to cart a laptop from point A to point B.

Yes, the iPhone is a steal at $500, $600, or $800.

So what's the problem?

The problem is I'm not eager to get into a 2-year contract with Cingular only to have Apple ship an updated version shortly afterward.

Remember the first iPod? The one with the relatively clunky buttons, the relatively low-rez, scratch-attracting screen. The second generation iPod followed only nine months later, and featured the solid-state wheel, more capacity, and improved screen.

Sure, Apple has learned a lot of lessons regarding mobile consumer devices, and the iPhone has nearly no buttons, high-rez, full color (and assuredly) scratch-resistant screen, so what's the problem?

Well, the iPhone is as much software as it is hardware, and let's face it, other than some fancy eye candy, most of the software isn't even written yet. As David Pogue notes: "As I tapped my way into obscure corners of the phone, Mr. Jobs pointed out a couple of spots where only a placeholder graphic was available."

And this is where I think my comparison of the iPhone to the first generation iPod really hits home: Remember the first generation iPod software? Remember iTunes 2.0? The iTunes Music Store didn't exist until version 4.0. You've probably blocked the memory that the only menu options were either related to your music (playlists, artists, songs), or your contacts and settings. That's it. No video, no games, no dock connector, not even on-the-fly playlists.

Now, if you're frothing at the mouth and June 2007 can't come quickly enough, I'll grant you that you're under no risk of making a bad decision by getting one of these-- particularly if you're saddled with some poor excuse for a phone or (horrors!) PDA like atrocity of a "smartphone", particularly those running WinCE (pronounced like it's spelled).

However, I hope you'll grant me the fact that, if an iPhone 2.0 is launched in the 6-8 months after the initial launch (whether this is purely a software or a new rev of the hardware, or both), that the second generation will invariably be a significant improvement over its predecessor, and that's when you'll see me plunking down for a two-year contract on one of these things. But you won't see me putting in a pre-order on one unseen, untouched and untested.

---

Be generous, share: Digg This! | Add to Del.icio.us | Have you Reddit?| Stumble It!

---

---