Blog For Arizona

Mule Train Mail: Dr. Richard Eaton "Iran, Can There Be a Grand Bargain?"

In early May 2003, just after American troops had triumphantly swept up the Tigris-Euphrates and taken Baghdad, an extraordinary message was delivered to Washington via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran.  It came as a two-page fax, on plain paper.  Now known as the “Grand Bargain,” this proposal had the apparent support of all the major actors in Iran’s government of then-President Muhammad Khatami.  Although the proposed deal offered to settle all disputes between Iran and the United States, the Bush Administration dismissed it with contempt.  Not only did American officials refuse to receive the message; they even scolded the Swiss ambassador in Tehran for having forwarded it to Washington.

At the time Bush rejected the offer, it seemed nothing could be gained from talking with Teheran.  The United States was sated with hubris.  American troops had just toppled the statue of Saddam Hussain, who himself would soon be captured and ultimately hanged. Just days earlier, George Bush had swaggered aboard the S.S. Abraham Lincoln to give his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech.  In Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was reportedly on the run, while neo-cons in Washington, flushed with these victories, were already eying Iran as the next domino to fall to America’s grand plan of  unilateral regime-changes in the region.  As Bill Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinsky stated in their 2004 report to the Council on Foreign relations, Why talk with the Iranians when we’ve got them hemmed in on both their eastern and western flanks? 

Today, however, with some six million Iraqis either killed or exiled as a result of the war, with the country’s infrastructure destroyed, and with no end in sight to America’s five-year debacle in Iraq, the world is a very different place.  Here at home, war-fatigue has set in, and the economy is dangerously weak.  Nonetheless, neither proponents nor opponents of the war -- including presidential aspirants -- have offered ideas on how American might end its Iraq adventure.  This, then, might be an appropriate time to revisit Tehran's offer.

Since most Americans are unfamiliar with the Grand Bargain, which the mainstream media ignored it when it was made, we can begin by asking what it proposed to do.   For their own part, Iran offered to make no attempts to obtain nuclear arms and to accept much tighter controls by the IAEA in exchange for access to nuclear technology.  They offered to stop supporting Hamas and Hizbullah in Palestine and Lebanon respectively.  They offered to cooperate with Iraq in all matters dealing with that country's security.  And crucially, they offered not only to recognize the state of Israel, but also to accept a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.  Quite obviously, the offer contradicted Bush’s claim, which was made then as it still is today, that Iran is committed to sponsoring terrorism and to seeing the destruction of Israel. 

For its part, the U.S. would fully normalize its relations with Iran, end its sanctions on the country imposed at the time of Iran’s Revolution in 1979, cooperate on a wide range of issues dealing with technology transfers, and recognize Iran’s security concerns. That would mean ceasing to characterize Iran as an “axis of evil” or a “terrorist” state.  It also meant ending threats to attack their country.  And finally, America would take action against the Mujahidin-i Khalq in Iraq, a group of hold-overs from the days of the Iranian Revolution who had never accepted the Islamic Republic and are determined to undo the revolution by overthrowing Iran’s current regime.

Read the Rest of the Grand Bargain After the Flip...

 

Meet Sydney Hay, Republican Lobbyist and Ideologue Seeking to Fill Tricky Dick Renzi's Purloined Shoes

Mining industry lobbyist and candidate for Congress in CD 1, Sydney Hay put together a very nice introductory video for her campaign. It illustrates very clearly why the GOP won't manage to hang on to CD 1: they are absolutely bereft of ideas.

Hay's campaign looks like it was cobbled together out of most extreme rantings and wacky policies of the Right over the past 20 years, the dissicated corpses of Reagan and Goldwater, and the most disingenuous and empty rhetoric the Right has fallen back on in defense of the massive failures of the Bush years, all held together by a 'values' appeal that already passé among evangelicals and fundamentalists, let alone the general public.

You can always tell when a social movement is effectively dead by how nostalgic its members become about a claimed Golden Age. In the case of the Conservative Movement, their necromantic rites centering around Reagan and Goldwater are increasingly elaborate, central to their religion, and frankly pitiful.

Sure, we Democrats have our culture heroes—FDR, JRK, RFK, MLK—but we aren't nearly so strident about hearkening back to their particular strain of liberalism as a lost Golden Age that we must return to, and to which our politicians must pay obsequious obescience.

That's because Liberalism is alive and kicking and growing. Conservatism is a dead and discredited credo, destroyed by Bush and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006, now seeking a leader who can revivify it with a fresh perspective and newly invigorated values. That leader doesn't seem to be Sydney Hay—she's too ideologically rigid to acknowledge any new ideas.

I was really amused by the enthusiastic and detailed endorsement by Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks. Since the incumbent is in the dock, Renzi can't exactly pass the establishment torch, so Trent from next door is pinch-hitting. It should prove amusing to watch the Republican candidates in CD 1 madly scramble to avoid any association with Renzi.

Trent credits Sydney with a number of key accomplishments. He indicates she lead the campaign to require a super-majority for any tax increase in Arizona. The result has been to ratchet down tax rates permanently, destroying the Arizona state government's ability to fund essential services. Trent tells us that Sydney, a former teacher, also was largely responsible for the failed experiment of charter schools, and for diverting taxes to private and parochial schools.

Polices Sydney claims credit for have over the last two decades been largely responsible for Arizona's free-fall to nearly the bottom among U.S. states in almost every educational metric. With accomplishments like these in her past, electing her to office is sure to result in policies that will make us even more backward, poor, and uncompetitive.

Let's take a quick look at some of the 'ideas' Sydney wants to take to Congress...

First Post - In Defense of Liberty!

by John Adams

First of all, thanks to Mike Bryan and Blog for Arizona for the opportunity to contribute to this exciting, progressive community.  It's a privilege to share our thoughts on today's issues.

Since this is my first post, please allow a brief introduction.

I retired from Active Duty in the US Army in September 2007, as a Brigadier General, with over thirty years' service to our Constitution as a Military Intelligence officer, Army Aviator, and Foreign Area Officer.

With on the ground experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan (temporary duty in 2004), I also served in Africa (Operation Guardian Assistance, Rwanda, 1996), Europe (Operation Allied Force, the Balkans, 1999), and the Middle East (Operation Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia, 1991).

On 9/11, I was at the Pentagon, 100 yards from the crash site...and on that tragic day I participated in the rescue and recovery of the shattered bodies of our brothers and sisters-in-arms. As a committed servant of the Constitution of the United States of America, I am determined to combat the murderers who attacked us on 9/11.

But I am just as determined to combat the fear-mongering criminals in the Bush Administration who assault our Constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us—and who under false pretenses, send our brave troops to die in the unconscionable occupation of Iraq.

From first-hand experience, I know national security issues. I also know that the Bush Administration cynically exploits our fears to gain ever more control of our national security apparatus, benefit the richest among us economically, and eviscerate our constitutional liberties.

Although I have taken off my Army uniform, I am no less committed to fighting for our Constitution—and for real national security—than I was when on Active Duty.

However, as John F. Kennedy said in his acceptance speech for his nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1960, "We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light a candle that can guide us."

In that spirit, please allow me to address a brighter subject...the movement to elect Barack Obama as our next President. Barack has a life experience that demonstrates his capacity for hard work and commitment...and most important for someone who aspires to the Presidency, Barack is a brilliant, caring, perceptive, and courageous leader.

My own life experience convinces me that Barack Obama is the greatest leader we have seen in America for generations. He has the experience, the judgment, and the passion to inspire all Americans, to unite us, and to carry this country forward beyond ethnic and economic divisions.

As a delegate pledged to Barack Obama, I will fight to make him our nominee at our Democratic National Convention.  With the help of Americans united in the conviction that we must change the course of our country, and chart a new one that benefits all our people, we will elect a President of whom all Americans will be proud.

I am privileged to call Blog for Arizona my "home," including at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I welcome your thoughts—and your counsel—as we march toward Denver and beyond.

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"

National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.

When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.

Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social,  and Foreign policy.

A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.

Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.

What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.

UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.

Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.

The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.

On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.

I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...

 

America and Iraq: The Economic Background of the Conflict, by Guest Commentator Karl Reiner

When he launched his brutal invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein shocked the world.  As his forces callously swept over the small neighboring state, he also deliberately smashed a budding rapprochement with the United States.  Although Saddam’s government had been peddling regional stability as an objective, it viciously repudiated that policy when it went to war. American intelligence officers were stunned and mortified.  Their analyses of Hussein’s intentions regarding Kuwait had been wrong.  No one had seen the invasion coming - not even the Kuwaiti leaders fleeing in terror toward the Saudi border.            

During the early 1980s, Iraq’s emissaries to Washington began pushing to improve relations with the United States.  They said Iraq wanted to end the war with Iran.  In their newly found desire to promote regional stability, the Iraqis expressed a willingness to support whatever agreement the Israelis and Palestinians worked out.  Had the bitter war with Iran forced Saddam Hussein to alter his policies?  An emphasis on economic development, the calls for regional peace and closer cooperation with the United States were taken as signs that the government of a war-weary Iraq was bending to reality.

More of Karl's unique first-hand perspective of the history of the Iraq conflict after the click...

 

Korb on Withdrawal From Iraq

Lawrence Korb is one of America's foremost military logistical thinkers. He authored a top to bottom force review emphasizing progressive defense goals and significant cost savings, which is itself a great tutorial on the American force structure and capabilities. He has also been a consistent and credible critic of the Bush Adminsitration's National Security Strategy (pdf). I heartily recommend delving into Korb's publication list to anyone who seeks to truly understand the American military, as opposed to simply having another opinion on the subject.

He has created a wholly realistic plan (pdf) for rapid (10-12 month) and complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Korb discusses the plan in this audio interview (mp3), and hits the highlights in the following promotional video:

The plan specifically addresses security issues between Turkey and the PKK that demonstrates the clarity with which Korb and his associates see the strategic environment in Iraq and the region. The plan was drawn before recent events with the Turkish parliament authorizing invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan.

The plan also addresses resettlement of Iraqi civilian collaborators whose lives would be in great danger upon a general American withdrawal, which is a topic that even politicians who are in support of withdrawal are not addressing, yet constitutes one of the most challenging moral dilemmas of the Iraqi debacle.