When the Janjaweed Come...

When the Janjaweed come, death is not far away.

First come the government planes, bombing. To scare the people out into the open from their villages. Then come the Janjaweed. They swoop in, on camel- or horseback. They shoot anything that moves: human or animal. young or old, male or female. They rape the women and girls. Villagers who are not shot, might be hacked to pieces, left to bleed to death. Dead animals are tossed into wells to poison the water as they rot away. Escape into the desert is not escape at all: many die of thirst trying to walk to a refugee camp. And the terror of the dreaded Janjaweed returning is present every minute.

The Sudanese government is conducting a systematic program of ethnic, racial and religious "cleansing" of the Darfur region of Sudan. The government, located in the northern part of the country in Khartoum is Arab-Muslim. Darfur and southern Sudan are sub-Saharan African. The Sudanese government wants Darfur "purified" so that if oil is found in that region, it will not fall into the hands of the black Sudanese. So they have chased some to the borders of Chad and the Central African Republic, where they wait in massive relief stations. The rest die. Walking hundreds of miles in the desert with barely the clothes on their backs. Trying to stay out of sight of the Janjaweed. Because when the Janjaweed come, death is not far away.

The African Union (AU), a coalition of African nations that seeks to unify the continent, and promote peace and economic growth, has a peacekeeping force of about 12,000 in the region, but the Sudanese government has roadblocked any progress toward peace in the region. The government has defied United Nations resolutions. The so-called agreement between the UN and Sudan to allow the AU to increase its presence, and do more for the refugees, has already fallen flat. Khartoum has always rejected plans for a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur (and have curtailed access and observation by the UN and other non-governmental organizations.) The latest agreement was to allow a hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping force, but the Sudanese Foreign Minister rejected that option out of hand.

A cloud of dust on the horizon signals the coming of the Janjaweed. Death rides on horseback. Death comes on camel-back. Death comes.

Meanwhile, although President George W. Bush promised, "Not on my watch," would another genocide like that between Rwanda and Burundi occur, the US seems content to talk some, but do very little. When other countries labelled the violence in Darfur a "brewing genocide," the US said nothing. When the United Nations declared the killing in Darfur genocide, the US said it was more like "ethnic cleansing" (genocide lite?). When the BBC and other news organizations broadcast some of the first images out of the region, showing dead bodies and animals, the charred ruins of villages, bones, skulls, limbs strewn along escape routes, the US was surprisingly silent. Perhaps not so surprising, since our government was adventuring in Iraq.

The orphans in the refugee camps describe in horrifying detail, in deliberate monotones, the horrors they suffered, the killings they witnessed, the rapes and other violence they endured. They speak of fleeing into the desert, lucky (if one can call it that) to have escaped the hacking machetes of the Janjaweed. They tell of walking for days, carrying brothers, sisters, babies; leading the injured and sometimes the infirm away from their burning homes. They don't look back. There is nothing to see there.

When a cloud of dust blows across the horizon, it used to be a just a haboob: the hot, Saharan desert wind. Today it may be the early warning that the Janjaweed are coming. And when the Janjaweed come, death is not far away.

------------
To read more about the crisis in Darfur, visit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6161692.stm The BBC offers some of the most compelling reporting about Africa.

The Toll Continues to Rise

Four more US soldiers died in Iraq. That brings the total for November to 45. We're halfway through the month and if this pace continues, sadly approximately 90 soldiers and marines will lose their lives.

Yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid said essentially we should stay the course, give the Iraqis about 6 more months to have their troops stand up and we can stand down. In the meantime, the Defense Intelligence Agency tells us that Iraq probably has about 6 months until all hell breaks loose.

At 90 servicemen (and women) a month, that means about another 540 will be coming home in body bags.

I don't know about you, but that is simply unacceptable. Perhaps Gen. Abizaid should have to place the calls to each of those families personally. Maybe then he'd get it.

The Washington Post has more on this story.

What Defines A Civil War?

Iraqi Police Linked to Mass Abduction
Read the full story at The Washington Post

I read the news today. Oh boy.
When armed gunmen entered the Ministry of Higher Education in downtown Baghdad, they pretended to be securing the area for a visit from "the American ambassador." They came wearing official looking uniforms, in a large convoy in vehicles with mounted machine guns. Men and women were separated, some were detained and apparently removed from the Ministry, some were later released. On the face of it, and in light of similar kidnappings recently, it's easy to call this just another case of sectarian violence. Or is it?

To live in Baghdad today, must be to live in constant fear. Every day bodies -- not just two or 3 -- but 20, 30, 40 at a time are found beaten, tortured and executed. Every day. Ride a bus to school or to the market, and you're likely to be blown to bits. Choose your method: road side bomb or a seatmate who detonates himself and sends you to meet your maker. Are you a baker by profession? You're a marked man, and not just by the flour on your apron. Drive an ambulance? Not for long. Thought about joining Baghdad PD? That's probably gonna get you killed. And probably before you've had a chance to don your uniform for the first time.

When do we stop calling this sectarian violence and call it civil war?

In an excellent article that first appeared in The Washington Post, April 9, 2006, James D. Fearon, Professor of Political Science at the Freeman Spogli Institure for International Studies at Stanford University, defines it as:

Civil war refers to a violent conflict between organized groups within a country that are fighting over control of the government, one side's separatist goals, or some divisive government policy. By this measure, the war in Iraq has been a civil war not simply since the escalation of internecine killings following the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, but at least since the United States handed over formal control to an interim Iraqi government in June 2004.

The Bush administration's hesitation to confront what they have wrought in Iraq, their "spreading of democracy," their nation building, takes it toll on the Iraqis daily. And their refusal to call it what it is, hinders -- no, prevents -- them from arriving at a solution to this terrible problem. Neither President Bush nor his Iraq Study Group will arrive at a solution until they acknowledge this painful -- especially for the Iraqis -- inevitable truth.

What defines a civil war? Iraq.

The Bush Doctrine: Incompetence is Good Government

Iraqi Prime Minister Promises Government Shake-Up
Read the whole story at the New York Times


Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraqi Prime Minister, has promised a sweeping shake-up of his government to rid it of cabinet ministers he says are incompetent, corrupt, and weak. Maliki complains that he didn't have enough freedom to select ministers he could work with inside the Iraqi Parliament.

Meanwhile, Maliki has irked the American military by demanding that checkpoints be removed, searches for a missing US soldier and Shiite militia leaders believed responsible for his kidnapping be suspended, appearing to condone sectarian violence by those same militias. As the violence continues to spiral upward, Maliki -- concerned about his future -- asked the Bush administration if they were plotting against him in an effort to unseat him.

In yesterday's blog (A Plan of Action For Iraq), three out of four of the options to fix the Iraqi fiasco include getting rid of the current government.

Maliki seeks to blame the problems of his poor performance on his fellow cabinet ministers. But as the Prime Minister, the buck (and we're spending billions of them in Iraq) stops with him. Now Maliki does govern in an environment where politicians, judges, butchers, bakers, barbers and boys are kidnapped, beheaded, blown up, shot, tortured or just mysteriously end up in mass graves. So perhaps he is afraid of that same fate befalling him.

But Maliki also knew what to expect when he ran for office and when he was elected. So far he hasn't done anything to quell any of the violence Iraqis live with every day. Sure, he's working hard. And it's hard work. And you have to be a hard worker to do the hard work. But the Iraqis elected him to be a Uniter, not a Divider; to be the chief Decider and decide what is best for his people. Apparently he's decided that he better off being the Appeaser.

When are those Iraqi mid-term elections?

A Plan of Action for Iraq

Washington Post: Pentagon to Reevaluate Strategy and Goals in Iraq
With the election over, Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate, and finally with Republicans saying, "Now you guys are in charge, so what are you going to do about Iraq?" It is time to answer that question -- or at least explore some options.

Throughout the election cycle, we heard about "cut and run" and "stay the course." Each seemed to be diametrically opposed to one another. But those slogans hardly describe the problem of finding a solution to the mess in Iraq. I don't profess to know all the answers -- heck, I don't know any of the answers -- but here is what I've been mulling over as possible courses of action.

First let's establish some baseline conditions that have to be established:

• The violence -- sectarian, insurgent, terrorist and other -- has to be contained and eliminated.
• A viable government must be established that will enforce national unity while recognizing ethnic, tribal and religious differences, and suppressing factional violence. This government must also be recognized by other governments in the region as well as the United Nations.
• Basic services must be restored to the populace. That is: food is plentiful and affordable; medicine and medical care is readily available.
• Utilities such as gas and electricity, services like water, sewers and waste management are all operational in all areas of the country.
• Second-tier services such as educational institutions are open to all who wish to attend.
• There is a system of providing news and information to the populace.
• The national economy is restored. Farmers can farm and sell their crops, oil can be drilled, refined and shipped. Goods can be imported and exported. The monetary system is stable.
• There is a national guard to defend the country against intruders. There is a police force to serve and protect the people. There is a legal system to enforce criminal and civil law.
• There is a codified system of justice which includes rules for a fair trial, appeal, and punishment.

Of course, there is more to nation-building than what is on my small list, but that would be a good start. Now to the options.

Let's agree that the situation in Iraq today is unacceptable. And, for the sake of discussion, say that our approaches to rebuilding Iraq will start from point zero: it's irreparably damaged and we must start over. Mind you, that I am not advocating any particular course of action, just mulling over some of the options.

Option 1: Turn Iraq into a US colony (Think British Empire)

To accomplish this option we need to re-invade Iraq, overthrow the Maliki government, secure the borders, and install a strong provisional government staffed by Americans. Americans would govern Iraqis. Americans would replace Iraqis and all foreign nationals as managing directors of all Iraqi companies, and hold all top management posts. Iraqis would provide the labor force.

To quell the sectarian violence, Iraq would be divided into as many provinces as needed to separate the various factions: Sunni, Shi'ia, Kurd and any other. The population would be relocated to the appropriate province of their ethnic background. They would be paid reasonable compensation for the inconvenience of the move, the loss of any property and start-up funds for life in their new home provinces.

The Iraqi police and the Iraqi military would be re-developed under US command, at first as auxiliary units with limited power.

All persons who cannot establish bona fide ties to Iraq, will be detained or deported. Those who are detained would live in a designated "detainee city" where they would be allowed to work and live, but not travel beyond the city borders.

Over time, some of the harsh restrictions would be relaxed, and eventually (20 years?) the US would relinquish control to a hand-picked government. US forces would withdraw, and the US would maintain "interests" in the country. A civil war or other form of unrest may occur after the US departs, but that seems to follow the natural course of colonialism. If the government is strong enough, it may withstand the unrest, otherwise there will be civil war.

Option 2: Choose to back one of the factions. Use the CIA and other covert operatives to create a viable opposition party to overthrow the Maliki government.

In this option -- similar to actions the US has taken in other parts of the world to de-stabilize or replace governments we didn't like -- covert forces (CIA, Defense, NSA, State) are used to infiltrate and support one of the sides, provide them with funds, arms, behind the scenes training so that the selected faction's leadership can do the dirty work of overthrowing the Maliki government. The regular US military forces would be withdrawn, leaving the undercover agents to operate freely. It doesn't matter -- in fact it may help the operation -- to announce a withdrawal deadline. The US troops could be re-deployed to some other areas in the region, so that when the "winners" surface, troops can be repositioned to support the newly formed "legitimate" government of the people. The new government would explicitly request the help of the US to maintain peace as the transition continues. That request provides cover for the US continuing to pursue its "interests" in the country.

Option 3: Encourage an allied country in the region to step in and maintain order.

This option is a variation of Option 2, but uses a third party, with full US support, to take over the country. The sole advantage here is that a regional solution might allow for more stability because it is a neighbor -- and not the US -- doing the behind the scenes manipulating. After withdrawing, the US interests in the country are limited, and the US would have to go through the third party to operate in the country.

Option 4: Give the existing Maliki government an ultimatum and a timetable, including a date certain when US troops, and all other support for the government, will be withdrawn.

The ultimatum is that the Maliki government needs to take control of the country PDQ (pretty damn quick), insure that all Iraqis, not just Shi'ites, are represented and protected by the government. The Iraqi army must be reconstituted, borders secured, violence quelled. If Maliki balks, the "or else" is that US troops leave immediately and the Iraqis can fight it out. The US should let Maliki know that should any other regional power (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey) invade, we will not help defend Iraq.

If Maliki agrees to the ultimatum, the US will proceed to an orderly withdrawal, with border security becoming the primary mission prior to departure.

Will any of these options work? I don't know. All have their advantages and disadvantages. The problem with Iraq today is that the situation is so far out of control that there is no clear solution. The heavy-handed tactics of Option 1 make the US look like a greedy bully. The under-handed tactics of Option 2, leaves other countries around the region and world fearful and suspicious. Option 3 looks more palatable, but means we'd have to play favorites to pick a country that would do our bidding and support our interests. Option 4, or some variation of it is probably what we'll end up doing, but unless we are ready march out immediately if Maliki balks, it has no teeth.

The $64,000 question is: Which one would I choose I if were President? I'm not a hawk and didn't support this misadventure in the first place. But if pressed to choose, it's between Options 1 and 4. I would probably offer Option 4 first, and if that fails, invade again and start over. Option 4, try to work with Maliki government is the right thing to do. But forceably turning Iraq into a peaceful US colony -- and not just a military outpost -- may be the only answer at this point.

I just don't know. And so far, neither does anyone else in Washington.

Saddam Verdict Nothing to Celebrate

The verdict in the Saddam Hussein show trial is nothing to celebrate. I know that few will agree with that statement today, but I expect those opinions to change. Perhaps in the coming weeks, we may be able to soberly reflect upon what this verdict means and how it will affect the US.

If we wanted to insure that Saddam Hussein was justly tried for any crimes against humanity he may have committed, he should have been remanded to the Hague, where a world court would have heard his case. He would have been adequately represented by counsel. His accusers and other witnesses could have testified openly. His lawyers and judges would not have been kidnapped and murdered. He would not have been tried by a Shiite court looking for revenge against a deposed Sunni leader.

But that is not what happened. And that mistake, made once again by the Bush administration, will lead to something bad happening here. As retribution for this farce they would like to call a "fair and balanced" trial.

If Saddam Hussein committed war crimes. crimes against humanity, or other grave offenses, he should have been tried like Slobodan Milosevic, the former president of Yugoslavia and Serbia. At the Hague, Hussein could have railed against the system all he wanted, at least the system would have been a fair one.

I know you will not hear me now. But if you are afraid of another terrorist attack on the US in the future, this trial will have been the catalyst. Perhaps Mr. Bush will get smart and have Saddam "renditioned" out of Iraq.