lloydtown 

Persian Letters

Edward Luttwak wrote in the Globe and Mail yesterday that the success of the U.S. mission in Iraq depends to a certain extent on Iran. Both Syria and Iran are helping the insurgents--and, according to Luttwak, they no longer fear any retaliation from the U.S. for doing so.

There are two main Iranian factions, and they are working in different causes in Iraq: "... as often before, Iran's two governments have acted in contradictory ways: while the Revolutionary Guards under Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei have helped Mr. al-Sadr, President Mohammed Khatami and the official government support Ayatollah al-Sistani." Luttwak predicts that the moderates associated with Sistani will win, partly because they have more decisive support from Iran.

Today there are reports that the U.S. is actually using an Iranian official as an intermediary to negotiate with Sadr. (News here; comments by Atrios here and Kevin Drum here). This despite the fact that there is no official diplomatic contact between the U.S. and Iran, and there are concerns about securing the Iran-Iraq border. The involvement of Iran may have been requested by representatives of three Iraqi mullahs--including the famous Sistani.

It seems possible that there are two U.S. factions as well. The military may prefer to fight it out with Sadr's militia, even at the cost of civilian casualties, in order to remove one troublesome threat. Bremer and other civilians, on the other hand, may prefer diplomacy. (One argument would be that an attack on the holy city of Najaf would incite many people who are not pro-Sadr to become anti-American).

It seems the best that can be hoped for in Iraq is some kind of mullarchy. Perhaps a close cousin of the one in Iran? Perhaps, taking this even farther, the "official" government of Iran are the people to whom sovereignty over Iraq can be surrendered on June 30. Well, that would obviously not be acceptable to Syria, Turkey, or others.

At any rate, it doesn't look like the U.S. will carry out regime change in Iran any time soon. Could it be that both Iran and Syria are making more trouble today than they were in March 2003?

Update April 15: Now apparently Colin Powell has asked Syria for help in stabilizing a difficult situation in Iraq. (Via Atrios).

Update: AP story (Toronto Star) with details on the Iranian delegation as it moves from Baghdad to Najaf. Glenn Reynolds links to a Telegraph story saying it was the Brits who requested the Iranians get involved. Also some details in the AP/Star on a UN plan to get rid of the Governing Council and name a new one.

Islam + Democracy (Without Occupation)

Haroon Siddiqui in the Toronto Star:

"Yet with little or no American interference, Algerians, Indonesians and Malaysians are working their way through democracy to a moderate course away from past upheavals."

I'm not sure what's going on in all these countries. The U.S. may have been targetting Al Qaeda leaders in Indonesia. Things may not be as great in Algeria as Siddiqui says.

Still, there are very positive developments among large Moslem populations--in the direction of democracy, opposition to terror, and other good things as well--and they do not seem to depend on "regime change" driven by outsiders.

Thailand has complained that Islamic rebels/terrorists have had support in Malaysia; the Malaysian government has responded by joining in an anti-terrorist initiative.

Siddiqui also mentions positive developments in Turkey. In several cases, he stresses that it is a good thing when a pro-democracy, pro-Western, anti-terror government in Asia criticizes some of Bush's policies. For one thing, identifying or agreeing too closely with Bush seems to hurt almost anyone politically.

Update: Implications for Iraq? More or less following Mickey Kaus, why not try the Sistani option?

Meaning: hold elections as quickly as possible, despite being confident that there is no reliable census or voters' list, and the Shiites will win, will do things the Sunnis don't like, and will give the Grand Ayatollah, and perhaps other mullahs, something like a veto over legislation and major decisions. Democracy yes; getting the U.S. to a substantially reduced commitment in Iraq, with the result of more freedom to act in various theatres, yes; the golden vision that has been more or less promised, no.

This probably involves giving the UN more of a role than the Bush administration wants. See Kevin Drum here and here.

In favour of Bush scepticism: has there been a case where the UN has been really effective in wading in to and resolving an actual shooting war? I thought it was pretty well established that the UN is better at peacekeeping than at peacemaking.

Music

I just bought two real cheap CDs at Walmart: Greatest Hits of Lead Belly, and 20 Magical Memories of Nat King Cole. No liner notes, but lots of good tunes: 10 in the case of Lead Belly (whereas this more respectable disc has 20); 20 in the case of Cole.

I knew the Lomaxes had worked on recording and cataloguing "authentic" or "roots" music in the U.S., and tried to find tunes and performers that were as free as possible from commercial influence. The web now tells me Lead Belly was one of their major finds. They had taken to searching in prisons, figuring that musicians serving a long sentence had been free from outside, including commercial, influences. He was serving a long sentence, and they helped get him freed. (He had been pardoned in another state earlier after composing a song to the governor).

The Lomaxes get partial credit on some of the songs. I love "Goodnight Irene," and this is a beautiful version. It is news to me that the 60s tune "House of the Rising Sun" is derived from Lead Belly's "New Orleans (The Rising Sun Blues)." (Which was already partly traditional). (See Almanac Singers (Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, et al), 1941; Bob Dylan, 1962; The Animals, 1964).

I have to explore some more: "Where Did You Sleep Last Night"; "How Long"; "John Hardy"; "When I Was a Cowboy"; "Pretty Flower in Your Back Yard (#1); "Roberta"; "Pretty Flower in Your Back Yard (#2); "Yellow Gal."

I'm listening to the Cole now; lots of lovely stuff, but with no indication of who wrote the songs, much less recording sessions, etc. No doubt I can do some research on the web. I'm thrilled the CD doesn't include "Ramblin' Rose," just as I'm on the lookout for Louis Armstrong compilations that don't include "What a Wonderful World."

I'm looking forward to opening the last Johnny Cash CD on my birthday (we paid full price). He famously covered tunes from surprising places, and gave the whole album a real atmosphere.

Partly I want stuff like this around so that my son can learn "the classics." I often have music on, and recently I've been acquiring "greatest hits" packages that I've lacked. He has taken the Who downstairs, along with James Brown, AC/DC "Back in Black," and U2, "All that you can't leave behind." I've fairly recently acquired Hank Williams, Miles Davis, and I pestered the family for some Dusty Springfield a few Christmases ago.

One of my musical heros is Quincy Jones. I have owned "Back on the Block" for years. I owned several LPs of his in the old days, and I haven't replaced them. My favourite was "You've Got it Bad Girl," with a romantic side and a brassy, big-band side. I've seen a compilation with only romantic pieces, but that doesn't interest me as much. I've acquired some oldies of his. "The Genius of Quincy Jones" (8 tunes), and "Pure Delight: The Essence of Quincy Jones and his Orchestra (1953-1964). Also "Miles and Quincy Live at Montreux."

I'm not sure what these amount to musically. When Q guest-hosted on Saturday Night Live, he took part in a joke at his own expense. A K-Tel type album, "The Best of Quincy Jones," consisted of background music from movies and TV. This is indeed how Q made a good living for a long time--along with arranging and conducting for Sinatra and others. (See the great Sinatra album, Live at the Sands; 1964?). He recently published his memoirs, and reviewers said his greatest achievements are those of a schmoozer, who could apparently line up any musicians he wanted at any time.

He seems to have given his heart to his orchestra (big band) in the 50s and 60s, but it never made enough money. The group always focussed on Europe as well as New York. Long-time players included Clark Terry on trumpet, Phil Woods on alto sax. "Jones kept digging into his own pockets to keep the band afloat, to the tune of $50,000, and he was not the only one....Quincy wound up owing the record company so much money they made an A&R man out of him."

If Q were to die tomorrow, the obits would say "producer of Michael Jackson albums, including Thriller (still among the best sellers?), with maybe a mention of "We are the World." (Q didn't compose, but he's producer/arranger/conductor on the famous video).

I would listen to more "hard core" jazz and classical--of the kind that is dying out, at least in the recording industry--except that my family doesn't like it. My taste is eclectic, but not straying too far from commercial. I miss other music I used to have on LP: Aretha Franklin, "Hey Now Hey"; Blood Sweat and Tears; Don Ellis, "Connection." (I often have the title tune in my head; like some of Q's music, it would strike many as dentist-office music). I used to own Yes, "Fragile," so I recently acquired the Greatest Hits CD.

We have a friend who is into bluegrass. We bought the album from "O Brother Where Are Thou?" There is lots of good stuff here, but I question the idea, which I think goes back to the Lomaxes and others, that anything that makes money is dirty. In fact I like a certain amount of really plastic stuff--not necessarily top-30, but crisp, well-produced, professional. I liked Bacharach and David before I liked the Stones.

The other weird thing about some of the bluegrass movement, like the history of Nashville, is the artificial separation of music that whites like from anything that sounds black. Real roots music in the U.S., as I understand it, has always drawn inspiration from both, with constant cross-over. Some day I want to learn more about Bing Crosby's brother, Bob, who apparently played just about everything extremely competently. Hank Williams borrows from the black blues, as well as cajun music and other things, and anticipates rock 'n roll. Ray Charles has had a uniquely American career.

My Dusty Springfield albums have helped me keep track of song writers: not only B & D, but Carole King and Laura Nyro. King wrote "Hi di Ho," and it was offered to Aretha. She turned it down--probably because it isn't actually an authentic gospel or soul piece--it's written by a reasonably nice Jewish girl from New York. Dusty recorded it on "Dusty in Memphis," and it became a modest hit. Then Aretha recorded it--a bigger hit. I love the BS&T version, with horns.

Militias in Iraq

From an article by a very angry Iraqi (Haifa Zangana, "an Iraqi-born novelist and artist ... a former political prisoner of the Ba'ath regime"), not necessarily reliable on all subjects:

"The CPA also ignores the violent activities of the four militias in Iraq, which have taken the law into their own hands: the peshmergas of the two Kurdish parties; the Badr brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq; Ahmed Chalabi's troops; and the ex-Ba'athist Mukhabarats under Iyad Alawi's national accord. These militias are run by members of the IGC and no one can touch them. No high-ranking official of Saddam's regime has yet been prosecuted either, despite the wish of most Iraqis that they be bought to justice."

Not long ago the CPA announced at the routine media briefing that they were close to a deal to "pacify" at least two of the militias by offering members either a regular military/police position, or a severance-type payout.

No more word on this? See here, here and there is a March 22 Washington Post story inserted in here.

Factions in Iraq

Some detail on members of the Iraqi Governing Council who object to U.S. military operations against Moqtada Sadr, on the one hand, and the Sunni insurgents on the other. One member at least has resigned from IGC.

Of course, they may simply want to distance themselves from the U.S. at the time when U.S. operations are at the least popular, while leaving the possibility of returning when the heat is off. Still, it points to trouble on the political front that may not be helped, and may indeed be worsened, by the military operations.

Two IGC members asked to serve as negotiators in Fallujah. At first permission was granted (by the liberator), then it was denied on the grounds that "the U.S. military could not guarantee their safety."

Another striking detail: Adnan Pachachi, who is publicly criticizing the U.S. and may have resigned, is a "respected former diplomat who less than three months ago had accompanied first lady Laura Bush to the State of the Union address," and "a secular Sunni who is widely considered sympathetic to the United States and who commands broad respect from many Iraqis." Hachim Hassani, "who is representing the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni Muslim group on the Council," is also very outspoken, and is apparently considering resigning.

I really don't know the cast of characters, but here is a brief overview of some IGC members.

Bush, Clinton and other boomers

Part of the whole debate about "who did better on Al Qaeda, Clinton or Bush (pre-9/11)" has revolved around a major national security document produced toward the end of the Clinton administration. Bush defenders have gleefully pointed out that it hardly mentions Al Qaeda, Clinton defenders have said the relevant kind of international terrorism gets plenty of attention, blah blah blah.

Here's something a bit different: a Clinton defender (Matthew Yglesias) admitting that the document shows some typical Clinton flaws:

"A fair criticism to make of this document would be that it has a very Clinton-ish laundry-list quality to it that stands in sharp contrast to Bush's focus -- both at home and abroad -- on a handful of key priorities. That, indeed, was the main criticism one heard from Condoleezza Rice and other Clinton critics from the right during the 2000 campaign. He was too unfocused. The critics were probably right about this. Unfortunately, and as we've seen several times before, when Rice had the chance to draw up her short list of priorities, she left multinational terrorism off it altogether.

"That means terrorism got less attention than it did under Clinton -- a mistake, not only in retrospect, but one that many people saw was mistaken at the time. This is not to say that the Clinton administration was as focused on the issue as, in retrospect, it's clear they should have been. But this, in turn, doesn't mean that Bush didn't take a bad situation and make it even worse."

I'll paraphrase, no doubt a bit unfairly: Clinton was smart, but he had difficulty focussing on a few manageable priorities. (I remember stories about how he would invite an already-exhausted staff to spend one more evening (over pizza or fried chicken) going through some list of policy alternatives--most of which would lead to no action). Bush is ... er, not so smart, but baby can he focus. And if his focussing exercise misses something quite important, he'll never admit it.

One fear I have is that history will record them as two versions of the useless or irritating baby boomer. My larger fear is that younger people won't just sit back and let all these boomers get older and older, and more and more dependent. First there is the cost of health care and other services, combined with waiting in line at stores and elsewhere while the codgers slowly shuffle through. Even more deeply, however, everyone will finally grow sick of the boomers--their music; their claim to have solved all of the world's major problems no later than 1968 (OK, 1972); their fatuous self-absorption. (Did we say we want to think globally and act locally? What we meant is that we want to drive kick-ass gas-guzzling SUVs).

A first step will be a public education campaign to encourage boomers to take up smoking.

If that doesn't work, more drastic action may be necessary.

Update: see Yglesias even more impressively criticizing Clinton: Clinton could and should have done more about the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2000, especially since he was term-limited and had nothing to lose.

Condi Rice etc.

Probably Condi Rice's best line yesterday (to former Senator Bob Kerrey):

"I'm aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein. That's a strategic view," she said slyly as some in the room applauded and laughed. "And we took the strategic view."

Instapundit has also noted this part of her remarks, and he links to a similar quote (thanks to Tom Maguire, tracking down the speech in question) by Kerrey.

It is worth remembering that many intelligent Americans reacted to 9/11 by saying: Arabs from the Middle East have attacked us. Let's take out Saddam Hussein.

It wasn't just Bush and the neo-cons.

Update: On the other hand, part of Richard Clarke's charges (as self-serving as they are) seems to be holding up. When there was a flurry of reports of impending terrorist action in December 1999, Clinton made it clear he was going to keep asking Cabinet Secretaries about it--Clarke was coordinating the meetings. Rather than keep saying what Condi Rice just said under oath--the reports are either vague or lacking in details that are needed for specific action; problems in communication are structural; we have more information about history than we do expert recommendations for action; we haven't been told what to do--Clinton's Secretaries pushed their staff to dig up any and all relevant specifics--"shake the tree." This effort seems to have prevented an attack at the time, and a similar effort might--stress on might--have prevented the 9/11 attacks. See Fred Kaplan in Slate, Kevin Drum, and Matthew Yglesias.

Instead of any such effort, Rice's proud boast is that a full report was being prepared, and in fact it was ready a day or two before 9/11. No other issue received the treatment of a full report that took months to prepare--not Iraq, not missile defence, only Al Qaeda. But amongst the Bushies, with a president who is not known as a great reader, is the "long report that takes months" an indication of a high priority? Isn't it rather an indication that an issue has been pushed into limbo?

I would guess that in that crowd long reports are for sissies. Give Dick Clarke something to do. Real people (mostly men) of action just act.

Election in Canada?

Some reports say Prime Minister Paul Martin is seriously thinking of calling an election before the summer.

None of his decisions or announcements since he became PM have amounted to much. Someone in the paper today mocked him for constantly promising change, and then saying something like "but we can't just talk about change."

He apparently hopes to present himself as a sober manager who won't take foolish risks--the former Finance Minister who cut spending, ran several surpluses, and only then cut taxes.

The sponsorship scandal from the Chretien years is brewing, but Martin keeps trying to say he wasn't involved. (That's what pretty well everyone who was involved is saying).

The Liberals may be ripe to lose, but is anyone ready to take over? Instead, we may have (once again) a strengthening of all our regional opposition parties. The main beneficiary of the scandal in Quebec is the Bloc Quebecois--a separatist party that wants to have seats in the national parliament.

The Conservatives may be as high as 30% nationally; the Libs about 40, with the NDP and Bloc at about 15% each.

My sense is that what the Americans call the "red state" vote--Republican, old-fashioned small town--exists in Canada, but isn't as large or influential as it is in the U.S. Stephen Harper of the Conservative party is aiming directly at that vote: more tax cuts, a stronger military, somehow save the truly essential government programs, especially health care. Leave social issues to a free vote in Parliament, while giving lots of hints that one is really a small-c conservative.

Does this win actual ridings in the suburbs, even in Alberta? I don't think so. I think Alberta votes for conservatives insofar as they stand for a kind of rebellion against a perceived Toronto establishment.

Criticisms of Bush

Srictly in terms of domestic politics, the national security issue is not exactly going the President's way.

As usual, I'll try to avoid commenting too much on the sad and crazy news we're getting from Iraq. It's difficult to know what's going on, or even whether it's generally for or against democracy, or the West.

My focus now is on what the President can be, and deserves to be, criticized for. The present investigation of decisions made before 9/11 is probably an almost complete waste of time. Clinton's approach and that of Bush before 9/11 were not as different as black and white. No one to speak of really thought an attack like 9/11 was going to happen, although of course some had warned that it might.

After 9/11, Bush focussed very promptly and properly on Afghanistan as the headquarters of Al Qaeda. Some Al Qaeda leaders were allowed to escape, and in general too much of the fighting on the ground was left to the Northern Alliance or warlords. Still, the effort could have been sustained, or expanded, but it wasn't.

Instead, the U.S. made Iraq its major focus. This is what remains mysterious. Intelligence needs to be interpreted, and the Bushies chose to interpret intelligence on Iraq in the most alarming way possible. This might have made sense if Saddam had actually attacked someone in the recent past, but he had not. The stories about Al Qaeda links were always pretty sketchy, unless like Laurie Mylroie you were determined to come up with a unifying theory that blamed Saddam for everything.

The war in Iraq did not prevent the U.S. from being active anywhere else, including Afghanistan. But it clearly ensured that troops simply were not available for a major effort. And many people are now saying a significant group of Al Qaeda leaders escaped, and have now organized somewhat independent cells in different parts of the world. The Madrid bombings may be the work of Al Qaeda, for example.

Musab al-Zarqawi may be an Al Qaeda leader, and he may be active in Iraq, but it seems that his activities there have increased, not decreased, since the U.S. invasion. (Before the invasion he may have been associated with Ansar Al-Islam, and a guest of the Kurds rather than Saddam). And he may not be the worst news for the U.S. there. Moqtada Sadr has now emerged as a leader prepared to engage in pitched battles against Coalition troops; he is even succeeding in getting Sunnis to fight with him in the anti-American or anti-Coalition cause. Ayatollah Ali Sistani speaks for a great many people as well. He has said consistently he wants mullahs to play a more limited role in Iraq than they do in Iran; Sadr is drawn to the Iranian model. Sistani may now be too much of a man of peace for many Iraqis.

Much of the violence of recent days, it seems, was neither caused nor led by Al Qaeda. It has nothing to do with 9/11, except that it was somehow 9/11 that brought the American troops to Iraq. What made an invasion of Iraq so urgent?

Of course, as we gain more and more clarity about our questions, they matter less and less on the ground. It seems that any president would now agree that it is impossible to simply pull out. Some genuine effort must be made to leave a civilian authority in place that can keep the peace. "If we simply withdraw or surrender, that will be perceived as a sign of weakness by all our enemies. We need peace with honour. We need a decent interval between our withdrawal and...something bad." This all seems kind of familiar.

A Trip in the Country

I'm just back from Markdale, Ontario, where my son participated in a curling bonspiel or competition: the Tim Horton's Timbits Provincial Elementary School Championship. This year the event was divided into two--western and eastern--and we were part of the western one. Forty teams began, sixteen made it to a "sudden death" game Saturday night, and eight played in three further playoff games on Sunday. Our group finished third--winner of the "B" game. Some would argue they showed they were even better than that.

We did a little sight-seeing. Markdale is a very short drive from Beaver Valley and Talisman ski resorts--we have driven by them before on a family reunion, but this time we were at the top of the ski hills--quite spectacular. Then we spent some time at Eugenia Falls--both a wonder of nature and a (bit of a) ghost town.

The falls, like the ski hills, are part of the Niagara Escarpment.

Markdale is now officially part of the municipality of Grey Highlands.

All told, the trip was enjoyable, but grueling.