Iraq

Baghdad’s infamous Green Zone quietly slipped into Iraqi hands on the first day of 2009. The US embassy is moving to its new fortifications nearby and the hallmarks of American culture that sustained American troops–from Starbucks to Pizza Hut–have been re-exported. But as the US military relinquished control of the huge swath of Euphrates River frontage they have occupied since the spring of 2003, questions remained over how Iraqis will govern from the new Green Zone. Though the national security situation has improved dramatically, and is now completely under an Iraqi mandate, some analysts say insurgents will surely test the zone’s new owners. Big Think looks back on the history of the American-controlled Green Zone with three items: an excellent critique of the zone from the counter-insurgency experts at Small Wars Journal last May; the International Republican Institute’s 46-page “Visitor’s Guide to Baghdad’s Green Zone” (removed from centcom website but available at Wired); and a vivid account of Baghdad’s chaos in 2006 by Time correspondent Aparisim Ghosh. With the occupation in the process of being dismantled, at least militarily, conflict experts can begin to wade through the sea of analyses--spurious and valid--that pave the way to the history textbooks. A good starting place might be the comments of Michael Walzer, Professor at the Institute for Advanced Studies. He spoke to Big Think about applying the theory of a just war to the Iraq debacle.

A picture of Barack Obama's cabinet is starting to emerge, and it is not pleasing his more left-wing supporters. Some of them were already unhappy about the appointment of Clintonites like Rahm Emmanuel. Now, the New York Times is reporting that Hillary Clinton will almost certainly become Secretary of State. That is disturbing for some Obama supporters, who were told during the primaries that her foreign policy views disqualified her from the nomination.How you feel about Clinton's appointment - assuming that it does come to pass - will depend on how legitimate you feel those criticisms were. Central among them was the charge that she showed bad judgement in supporting the Iraq war. That may well be so, but she had a lot of company in this. Many liberals, myself included, thought in 2003 that regime change was the lesser of two evils, only to change our minds when we saw the nature of the regime change we got. I would readily admit that was bad judgement on my part. Clinton refused to say that it was bad judgement on hers - this may, in fact, have been what cost her the Democratic nomination. Perhaps she was privy to special intelligence before the war which added support to Bush's arguments. But I find it hard to believe that she had any such excuse, given that she reportedly failed to thoroughly study the briefings given to her at the time.Nonetheless, that is all in the past. What matters is what sort of Secretary of State she will be over the next four years. It is clear why many on the left are concerned about this. She has been decidedly hawkish on Iran, supporting the controversial Kyl-Lieberman amendment that classified that country's Quds Force as a terrorist organisation. She also has a reputation for pandering to the more extreme elements of the soi-disant 'pro-Israel vote' in the States - and since this voting block's favoured policies would actually harm Israel and the peace process, this is concerning.However, this history may allow her to play the role of Nixon in China on these questions, providing Obama cover against those who would claim that his positions on these issues are too 'soft'. She and her husband have almost unparalleled knowledge and experience of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian question in particular. There are already rumours that Obama has charged her with finding a solution to this, and given her substantial autonomy in doing so. If she can accomplish this, few will or should regret her selection.

Ahead of the Democratic convention, the Obama camp has plenty of material with which to strengthen its own position on Iraq and with which to set about attacking McCain. First, the Bush administration is close to agreeing a deal with the al-Maliki government that will set in place a phased withdrawal of most US troops from Iraq by 2011. The Republican candidate will not be able to lampoon the Democrat on Iraq when Obama's plan for the country more closely resembles that of the White House. Furthermore, McCain's vociferous support for the "surge" - about which he has routinely bludgeoned Obama - may be tempered by a dark turn of events in Iraq. Al-Maliki has launched a campaign against the leaders of the Sunni "Awakening Councils" - the militant groups co-opted by the US last year to fight against fundamentalist radicals - threatening to broaden internecine rifts in Iraq. As some analysts warned in 2007, the empowering of Sunni tribal factions would invariably threaten the central government. Obama's advisers will be parsing the Iraq news ticker and finding ample cause to whittle away at the robust facade of McCain's foreign policy.

Yesterday evening, in the dark and faintly musty basement of the Kensington Library in west London, openUSA attended a fascinating lecture on "anomalistic psychology" - the psychology of belief in the unreal - hosted by the Society for Psychical Research.

We learned, amongst other fun facts, that one out of four Americans believes in ghosts. This quarter of the population presumably doesn't include the pro-Clinton group American Leadership Project, whose new TV spot in Oregon makes no mention of Obama, suggesting that the ALP doesn't want to cause any further Democratic disunity. Even many of Clinton's supporters don't think her campaign can return from the grave.

We also learned that one out of ten Americans believes they have spoken with the devil. Obama may aspire to join this sizable ten percent as he continues to insist on negotiating with Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But god-fearing George W Bush and his anointed Republican successor John McCain won't have anything to do with fiendish interlocutors. Speaking in the Knesset yesterday, Bush equated Obama to Neville Chamberlain, Iran to Nazi Germany, and diplomacy and statecraft to that object of neo-con disdain: "appeasement". McCain piggy-backed on the president's craven fear-mongering, prompting sharp retorts from both the Obama camp and Hillary Clinton.

Bush comes out of this looking particularly foolish. Never mind that Iran's nuclear threat is grossly exaggerated (a fact supported by the latest national intelligence estimate). Never mind that evidence of Iran's aggression in Iraq and the Persian Gulf is highly dodgy (indeed, the UK Foreign Office has even conceded it was in the wrong over the detention of British sailors last year). Never mind that the White House's clueless policy of trying to isolate Iran has only made Tehran stronger and more important in the region. It turns out that only the day before, Bush's own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked up talking with Iran.

Republican Iran policy is bound to fail when inconsistencies and reality-checks keep eroding its stubborn facade. The devil, after all, is in the details.

Late update: For those readers with a sadistic streak, watch Chris Matthews tear apart the witless right-wing radio pundit Kevin James (particularly after 4.10). When one forsakes argument for analogy, at least try to get your history right.

Speaking in Ohio - a crucial battleground in November - McCain dreams up the state of affairs in Iraq five years down the road:

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.

Sounds like staying the course to us. Is this how McCain plans to distance himself from Bush?

by Felix Cohen

Max Blumenthal, son of one of our authors, has put together this great short documentary on Republican college kids. Enjoy!

by Jessica Reed