Consistency, a hobgoblin that does not bother small minds on the far Right

The peace activists who were just rescued in Iraq have been denounced on far right talk radio for not sufficiently thanking their rescuers. They were on record, before they were kidnapping, as stating that violence in Iraq was due to the Coalition troops and if captured, they didn't want to be rescued.

Afterwards, they stuck to their story. Why shouldn't they? They really believe the teachings of Christ in a fairly literal way. This is in contrast with the so-called Christian fundamentalists, who believe exactly what the Bible says except where it talks about "Thou shalt not kill," and the part about not trying to get rich. Shouldn't Christian Peacemakers be allowed to practice their faith?

Now it seems that another one wants to go back. The following comes from an online article based on BBC coverage:

Despite the kidnappings, another CPT member, Jan Benvie has told BBC News she intends to go to the country in July.

She said she did not accept her presence should mean an extra responsibility for the security forces.

Let her go, I say. And if she gets kidnapped, leave her alone. American soldiers are being asked to die in Iraq in defense of an American belief system. Pacifists should be allowed the same right.

Who are the terrorists now?

Even the US Ambassador to Iraq now thinks the "militias" are killing more than the insurgents. Of course, by "militias," we mean the Shiite dominated police. It's not happening in Kurdistan. It's also not surprising, statistically, that if you piss of the Shiites, they will wreak more havoc than the Sunni arabs because they outnumber them 3:1.

However, all this begs the question, who are the terrorists in Iraq that we're fighting? The Bush doctrine of a universal fight against terrorism involves a rough definition of what a terrorist is. It includes state-run terror, which is how we roped Saddam into the definition. We now see that semi-official death squads are involved in ethnic cleansing. We supported intervention in Yugoslavia for that reason.

Now, of course, it's a little trickier since we trained them. Except the ones who got trained in Iran. Which brings up the fact that in the 1980's, we were supplying support to Saddam against the Iranians, so the "remnant Baathists" in Iraq may owe some of their training to the US as well. Not to mention the jihadists from Afghanistan.

Am I trying to make a point here? Yes. Let's get out now.

Alice in Iraqiland

Joost Hiltermann, writing in the Baltimore Sun, has put forward four steps to save Iraq from distintegration. Juan Cole mentions him, although it isn't obvious if it's approvingly or not.

I hope not, since I generally appreciate Cole's realism. Hiltermann's four points are:

• Iraqi political leaders renounce violence and so inform their followers,
• an inclusive and representative government must be formed,
• the constitution must be revised to meet everyone's objectives, and
• the security forces must be trained by the US to replace the militias.

That's the gist of it. Cole describes Hiltermann as "veteran," which sounds like the guy should know what's up in Iraq, but his four points have been US policy for years and all four are proving to be unachievable. What's the point in laying them out again?

Perhaps the logic is to demonstrate that the disintegration of Iraq is now inevitable and that the US should simply try to figure out the least damaging exit strategy. If these are essential and all are out of the question, let's go home! George Will called on President Bush to give Americans the unvarnished truth. I doubt he meant that we've lost and should high tail it out of town. Americans are approaching that realization, but you don't sell newspapers or attract TV audiences by being pessimistic before the time is ripe.

I've been saying for three years and I'll say it again that Iraq will fail over two non-negotiable issues -- control of Kirkuk and control of Baghdad. The Kurds have wanted nothing from Iraq except to be out of it and they need Kirkuk. They got it from the constitution last fall and they aren't going to negotiate it away now. Nobody has anything to offer them that's worth as much.

This is a national destiny issue and the Kurds won't back down. The Iraqi arabs are going to be very unhappy as are the Turks, which may make life very interesting for the US, a NATO ally of Turkey. There could easily be civil war over Kirkuk with a dangerous international flavor.

If not, then the Sunni arabs will have lost one of the two things they need to obtain and Baghdad will loom even larger. They need to control Baghdad, which in turn must control some semblance of national government with oil revenue from the South. That's not going to happen peacefully.

There are three groups and two oil regions. The historic ruling group, which has abused and oppressed the other two for decades, is the one with no oil in its natural geographic base. This isn't going to be settled amicably. Every day brings us closer to the inevitable civil war. Let's get out now.