Australia exit strategy

Australia exit strategy

PM has no plan for Iraq, says Rudd | Herald Sun - the Opposition leader of Austrlia, Kevin Rudd points out that the Australian government has no "exit strategy" to bring Australian soldiers back from the dangerous war in Iraq. Should the troops stay in Iraq or should they be brought home. The newspaper features a little flash movie with made up quotes arguing the merits of "keep troops in Iraq" or "bring our boys back" advertising their message boards. That the discussion is defined in these terms by the media sets the stage for unripe policitians to follow suit. It is defining language - either you are on this side, or the other one.

Australia is backing the US in the war so its actions are a private contract between it and the USA. It does not really matter what the conditions are on the ground, but if there is a US withdrawal, then the Australian army would probably leave. That much is clear from the PM's silence on exit strategy.

If all the soldiers were killed by friendly fire or insurgent attack, then they would not be coming home. And technically they would not be remaining in Iraq as they would be dead and their bodies returned.

That much is clearly what constitutes John Howard's exit strategy for Australian troops given to the USA's illegal effort that seems to fuel sectarian violence.

What John Howard has yet to outline is what he is going to do if American does not leave Iraq and the insurgency just carries on the way it has for hundreds of years. Why has George Bush enabled Iraq towards a Shiite revolution? John Howard has got to keep asking himself that question. Why is Australia etching itself into the minds of war children, the future of terrorism emanting from war scarred Iraq?

NEW VERSION

NEW VERSION

We are switch DTRENDS.ORG to the beta blogger version.

Our massive archive of news reports about Iraq over the last five years will remain on this site but the new DTRENDS.ORG site will build a new phase and chapter in the continuing story of Disturbing Trends, in this our troubled world.

Stay or Go arguments

Stay or Go arguments

A paradoxical situation appears to confront President Bush and his 150,000 soldiers in Iraq. If they set a time table for departure, Bush reasons that the insurgency will bide their time until US forces leave, and then overthrow whatever Government may be left. If they stay, they may have to stay indefinitely to prevent "civil war".

America's decision to "stay or go" does not effect the power motives of the insurgency. After decades of destructive minority rule, the Shiite majority are determined to hold their own, as are the Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Fear of militias breaking down the doors and ethnic cleansing is the old story. America faces the colonial dilemma many European powers faced before the First World War.

Colonial power is like love. It only works when set free. The only benefit of colonial power is in the independence of the colony. America proved this to the world when declaring independence from the British in 1776. Imagine if the British had "won" the War of Independence. What kind of America would exist today?

Witness the difficult time the ex-Soviet satellite states have had getting back on their feet in the world after years of colonial domination.

The Bush doctrine is a distrust of any other model of society than "freedom and democracy". Too bad Bush has demonstrated to the world that "freedom" means putting people in chains without due process. 'Tis a pity that by the Bush doctrine, "democracy" only exists if they have voted "correctly" at the polls.

The real solution to Iraq is neither an American withdrawal, nor is it staying. So what else is there?

A good start is to realize that the Republican enthusiasm to put Iraq to rights was based on invalid intelligence. Invalid intelligence means stupidity. It was stupid to invade the containment of Iraq before making peace with Iran.

Bush, from the very start, was determined to gain a heroic status with his people. If it were not for 9/11, he would not have been re-elected. 9/11 happened, and Bush invaded Afghanistan. If he rejected invasion of Iraq as a poorly researched set of assumptions, the war on terrorism would have been won sooner.

Instead, Bush is losing control of not just Iraq, but Afghanistan as well. If Pakistan, 80% Sunni dominated, is the refuge for Al Qaeda, that threatens stability. Who can blame America for forging alliances with both Pakistan and India?

America appears to miss any opportunity to make peace with Shia Islam although Iran could well serve as an ally in Iraq but can only be seen by America as an enemy due to its nuclear ambitions.

But the solution is to remove the forces that divide, and the obvious one is the Shiite population of Iraq, in majority it could forge an alliance with Iran and that would make America cringe as two of the most significant oil producing nations would be in Shiite control. Al Qaeda is evidence that America has more to fear from Wahhabism and its strictures that suppress innovation and human expression.

Comparison of the fortunes of Libya and Bangladesh are instructional. Libya was a rouge state, is Sunni dominated and its Government was involved in acts of terrorism. After thirty years, Libya came in from the cold. Bangladesh has a Shiite majority and although its history has been horrific, it has resolved its considerable difficulties. The challenge is to recognise that Shia Islam is the more fluid, modern variety. Like America it seeks strength from modernity. Sunni is more traditional (like Britain) and seeks strength from its historical relationships and constructs.

The problem is not so much the US army in Iraq who are generally doing a fine job of killing people and protecting the few they recognise as civilians. It is the US leadership that is threatened by Iran due to its stand on Israel. Are Iraq and Israel linked due to the fact the Palestinians are Muslims or Arabs? No. That is another grand mistake. Iraq and Israel are very different problems. Iraq, Israel and Iran are all separate issues. The solution to Iraq does not involve Israel, but it must involve Iran. The future of Israel will not involve Iran. The future of Iran does not involve Israel or Palestine.

Resurrection

Resurrection

No, its not like that, or anything.

Just a link to an old resurrected blog I added the wrong post to, these subsidary lost blogs formed a sort of fictional backdrop to disturbing trends, back when it had thousands of visits. Now the new domain name http://dtrends.org is starting to catch on and our new wigits (bookmark me! things in the side columns) plus our more intelligent three column format with a faded green mountain, and the good old Disturbing trends seems to return.

Back when we predicted the end of the world, rather than just report on it. Back here we reported on the NZ Prime Minister having to apologize to George Bush for saying imagine if Al Gore were president - there would have been no war in Iraq. Never mind, George Bush has now accepted Helen Clark's invitation to New Zealand.

Our predictions for this time are simple:

America is being forced out of Iraq and it will not leave quietly and Syria will act militarily upon Lebanon. Hesbollah will become a bigger influence in the region and will continue to arm the Palestinians.

GW Bush will become an elder statesman before his time. The US army will be stuck in the Middle East for a long time than even he imagines.

The British withdrawal from Basra indicates secretive negotiations between the UK and Iran so that a state of peace could at least exist at Iran's border with Iraq.

Look below for links to the distribution and location maps by the BBC of the Shiite majority, it seems mainly separate from the Sunni, Kurd and Kurdish Sunni to the North.

Partitioning of the country into North Iraq and South Iraq may allow negotiation of a peace process. Continual war weakens the community. Civil war is worse.

For Iraq's sake, the negotiations are between Sunni Syria and Shiite Iran and how both seek to define their relationship in Iraq by fighting against each other as well as the UN forces in occupation is just the start. It is not a magic bullet that will magically solve anything.

That they are talking, it is just a start.

Now, Mr Bush, you need to start talking too. Get your head out of the sand and realize that Iran probably already had nuclear weapons and shall acquire the means to construct more. They will not stop just to kneel to your needs.

Their needs are not being addressed by the US invasion, indeed, nobody has really defined what the needs of Iran are, except that they want to spread their brand of Islam. They have been fairly brutal in their own Shi'ite kingdom, but inside Persia we have a modern world and wealthy country. Most of Saudi Arabia is ancient and its wealth is so privileged that 99.5% of the country is considered below the poverty line.

The Elegant Solution

The Elegant Solution

Democracy and Iran

One of the arguments that may have convinced Bush that invading Iraq seemed right were the sham elections where very nearly 100% voted for Saddam. It is possible that they did, out of fear and it is also possible that it was false. Either way, it is almost academic, except that the validity of elections is the crux of democratic reality. One good thing about the Democrats winning the mid-terms so convincingly is that they could. If election scandals rightfully rocked Saddam's fake democracy, if it was, the conclusion to his role in the leadership of that country is cast. The same goes for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President George Bush. Leadership shapes the future and in the post 9/11 world we have tended to elect leaders against a context of terrorism. Spain and the US, Russia and Ukraine - react to terrorism but not necessarily how terrorists would believe.

That is what we are at war with, we are effecting what the "enemy" think. Maybe that is the point of war, the people left alive have to work harder to survive. That the enemy think means that we listen to their logic. Iran has a more compelling logic with Al Qaeda being the worse option, and the result of the imbalances in the Sunni Muslim world. Iran and Shiite Islam appear to be a less destructive form than the Taliban could ever be.

Is a nuclear armed Iran any more frightening then a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia? The next logical step in the poisoning of the Earth that the motivations of those who sit on the majority of the oil should start flinging nuclear explosions about. They simply have everything to lose. Wiping Israel off the map is not real politic.

More likely, Iran deserves reparations from the stupid Iraqi war Saddam inflicted upon it. His Sunni minority had to be protected from the Shiites. The horror of Saddam's policies seem similar to the horror of the Bush policy in Iraq.

George Soros

George Soros

It is like the converted are preaching back. The war in Iraq is irredeemable simply because it is the wrong way to solve the problem. The problem is the hotbed of competitive death cults in the criminal Baathist Sunni and more radical Shi'ite militia. The presence of American troops is an irrelevance because these opposing elements are no more afraid of conducting gradual genocide and political murders under American control then they would be without it. Suicide is "painless", no matter how much it really hurts.

America needs to stop pretending Iraq is a country that can be led by one government. The Iraq of Basra and the South does not have the same motivations as that of the North. Kurdistan and the half of Iraq that is desert will remain under Sunni control. Saudi Arabia may need the buffer zone with Iran.

American presence in the Middle East has two effects upon America's position. It polarizes Iran vs. America. It establishes a gripe for Al Qaeda to motivate its minions due to presence of US troops in sacred lands. Al Qaeda has failed to combat the Islamic revolution originating from Iran. America has made the mistake of making itself an enemy to both sides of this ancient Islamic conflict, the UK has reduced its authority as a peace broker due to the participation in occupation of Iraq.

How will the West separate the political argument from a popular belief that the Americans are essentially all that is wrong in Iraq? That clearly is not the case, there are forces trying to tear Iraq asunder. Unfortunately, history appears to be one of them.

The accord America could reach with Iran would provide a barrier between the warring parties - Iraq Shiite and Iraq Sunni. If they are going to put their army in the middle if this conflict, it requires high levels of diplomacy between it and each side of the conflict. Both aides make war criminals of themselves as they conduct their rituals of mutual ethnic slaughter and America is there to cop the flak.

blog on the move

blog on the move

We thank blogspot for hosting our blog but we thought we would host it on its own domain for a while to see if that will help kick it into motion.

You can continue reading Disturbing Trends by going to www.dTrends.org

Iraq Demographics

Iraq Demographics

The maps in this article show the population distributions and pretty much the two different countries that occupy the land that has been called Iraq in a shame of nationhood only held together by death squads and the iron fists of Saddam Hussein.

The Kurdish people extend way beyond the borders of Iraq. Turkey does not want an independent Kurdistan as that would mean half its territory gone. This country missing any legality in the United Nations because of lines drawn up by others is overshadowed by the religious conflict between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims. The map reveals Kurd Sunni and Sunni Muslims in the north west, and the majority of Shi'ite mainly closer to the south west borders with Iran. Most of the East side of the country, closer to Sunni Saudi Arabia is sparely populated desert and mainly Sunni with borders in the more populated North East to Sunni majority Arab countries, mainly Syria.

When America says it could look to Iran and Syria for assistance, it can only be to the benefit of stability in the region. America is offering an olive branch and should do so separate to other conditions. Why is a nuclear armed Iran more dangerous than a nuclear armed America escapes me, but it seems inevitable considering the chess game erupting between opposing fanatical world leaders thinking outside the mandate of their own people. Iranians love their country and are probably as divided about their leadership as America. Both think they are right in the Eyes of Heaven. Both support peoples of Palestine/Israel.

Do the Sunni understand the Shi'ite any more than anyone else? What goes on behind Iron Curtains is generally decay. Iran should not be singled out by America as the Enemy. It is a Sunni extremist sect called The Taleban, and its international wing, Al Qaeda.

The KEY to the Iraq country is America protects United Iraq-Kurdistan North from the Sadr-Iraq of the Shi'ite South. They simply ask Iran to be the protectorate over the Shi'ite part of Iraq and that means that Iran now only has desert to traverse to invade Sunni heartland, Saudi Arabia.

So, how can America negotiate with Iran without getting involved in what appears to be its own jihad against Sunni Islam? Is Al Qaeda actually not going for America so much as prod it to attack Iran?

And now, Iraq

And now, Iraq

Those seeking to determine the course of the Iraq war, this column included, usually have one of many typical understandings of the news. Right wing, or Left wing, the aim is similar, or it should be. War is simply the most dreadful outcome to go for, when all else fails, it may be the one way to stop worse consequences.

Whether anyone is right about a proper solution to the problem depends upon much more. Whether America can now prepare itself to rejoin the democracies of the world depends upon if they impeach George Bush, or not.

That America should never have deposed Saddam Hussein militarily was obvious when Al Gore lost the Presidency to a divided America. It was obvious that George Bush was destined to outdo his father and do what seemed so obvious to the Right. Saddam must be punished tortured brought to justice !

Well, I dare say that George Bush has presided over the death of more Iraqi than Saddam would have in the same time period, and the country seems in pretty much the same old state of corruption and wealth employed militarily and disbursed by the American invasion.

America could now get between the warring factions of Iraq. They could give part of Iraq to Syria, and keep the rest for the majority Shi'ites who would do well to go into coalition with the Kurds, perhaps. It is time to do something that stops the violence, even it it is simply withdrawal.

The President must be feeling the American voice has spoken against him. Decisively, not divisively.

Government Intervention

Government Intervention

It reminds me of the Millenium Dome. A Government designed hugely expensive memorial to its own blindness. In this case, the need to make a big statement to the world about New Zealand with the Rugby World Cup scheduled for 2011 in Auckland.

A government that has taken large dents out of New Zealand's debt position by running massive surpluses. A government that refused to enter Iraq on military terms. A government run by a third term female prime minister who has managed to become unwitheringly popular.

They should build the Albany Stadium or build another stadium north of the city. Then put in train lines to it and buy some trains and permanantly solve the city a gridlocked bridge it totally relies upon. Think.

Rumsfeld Folded

Rumsfeld Folded

It finally happened. The one thing almost unbearable in its predictability was the demise of arch-war-monger-in-chief Rumsfeld. We all knew he was going to have to go, and after the mid-term NO WAY to the US Presidency on dishonest war for the sake of "doing something about tyranny", Rumsfeld seeks absolution in his resignation.

Hold on a minute. This man headed an army that without provocation or reason marched into Bagdhad, and directly or indirectly caused the deaths of over half a million people. Iraq is worse than it was when Saddam was sentencing Shia rebels to death. Bush would have us believe it is Saddam's example the insurgency are following into violence - it is the evil government of Saddam that the Bush administration basically took over as an enterprise, formenting agony in Iraq.

America could anncounce a conditional withdrawal immediately, starting one month from a complete cessation of violence. At least the insurgency will not be able to continue to trade on its image as beating back invaders, indeed, the insurgency is Saddam's army. The Democrats are hardly likely to come out as pacifists in this instance. They have Congress. The Senate looks like it is more likely to fall out of Republican hands but it is the jewel in the crown, the White House, that controls the military.

Bush could well be at his most interesting from this point on. He is not a lame duck - he is more like Ronald Reagan than like his father, shot down from stratospheric popularity to humble pie eating.

Cheney is next.

---

Letter to the Editor: NYTimes

At least without a determined old warhorse at the helm, the US can change the deal with the occupation of Iraq. They can now say, stop the violence and we will go. They can now make the insurgency unpopular.

Unfortunately for the US - Rumsfeld was too determined to prove that the enemy can be destroyed. The way WWII was won. New thinking was required 5 years ago, unfortunate it was left deteroirating so long, but yes, Rumsfeld was too convinced to be objective, too determined to be rational.

New blood may do better or worse, but Rumsfeld would never have stopped beating his head against the wall.

India to press Hu for quick border settlement- The Times of India

India to press Hu for quick border settlement- The Times of India

India to press Hu for quick border settlement- The Times of India

I did not know that China and India had a border dispute they were needing to talk about. Is there a natural tendency for neighbours to squabble and this is accentuated by excessive population. The land is more valuable to China who have already swallowed Tibet many years ago. Long term it seems that the border between Russia and China is a pressure point if population pressure continues in China. With Russia's contraction of recent times, an imbalance of power is only held in abbeyance by the size of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Concerns in the Caucasus may divert conventional Russian defences and present Chila with an opportunity that could create a future challenge.

Iceburgs

Iceburgs

Iceburgs are breaking off and floating about in the southern seas. Do we see them as a warning? Or just part of Nature?

Meantime, scientists claim they are not funded by Exxon Mobile in their endevour to debunk the myth of climate change. If industry pumping CO₂ into the atmophere is "life" and so very much part of a system of balances then by all means use funding from a corporate sponsor and bring the evidence to light. Propaganda on this could be worse than a war crime, but give them the benefit of the doubt for a second.

We can see iceburgs already breaking off from the Antarctic, the barometer of gradually and yet constantly increasing storm activity, species that humanity has eradicated due to the destruction of their living world and the elimination of rain forests.

The US Government published this EIA report. And this . The 1997 level of CO₂ emissions (98% of which are burning fossil fuels) from the US was 5,422.3 millions of metric tonnes. 5 billion tonnes of carbon into an atmosphere that is processed by "life", that is to say the chemical interchange that all animals rely on, that plants convert CO₂ into O₂ is essential to our ability to breath. Our industrialisation. Part of nature is to convert the carbon in the atmosphere and safely store it in vast banks we call oil and coal reserves. Now industrialisation is taking the carbon out of the ground, and pushing it back into the air; with destruction of rain forests and natural environs an essential balance is not preserved. Working against nature is plain stupidity.

We need to address that crucial balance of our activities. Climate change is nature's warning system to curtail our activities before we destroy everything that moves. If the weather is so severe we can no longer travel, so yes, it is nature that will correct the anomoly of industrialisation. That is what this scientist appears to mean - climate change is already in process. On the vast scale of time, it is a blip. Mass extinction due to atmopheric change is another matter and would be more effectiving at snuffing out the gifts of diversity than humanity has been.

Resources:
Track Severe Weather