I just came back from a discussion on Iran and US Foreign Policy with Scott Ritter and former US Diplomat Edward Peck, hosted by Cleveland Peace Action at Trinity Cathedral in Downtown Cleveland, Ohio. After some brief introductory words, Scott Ritter gave a 20-minute presentation about the looming US military action against Iran.

A repeated meme of the GOP House members, echoing a frequent Bush theme, has been that "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here."  As a GOP memo outlined, their strategy is to avoid discussing whether any our objectives in Iraq are attainable.  They know they will lose, because every informed source including the recent NIE says those obje

(This is Part 3 of a 3-part series.  In Part 1 -- Our Gates of Moscow -- I suggested that however wrongheaded our reasons for going into Iraq, we are now stuck there until a better option opens.  In Part 2 -- For God and Country -- I suggested that the entanglement of religious and secular power was the most vexing factor in Iraq and the Middle Eastern region.  In Part 3, I look at strategies for stability and peace in the Middle East.)

The Project for a New American Century takes as a given that the United States is "the greatest force for good in the modern world."  Perhaps that was true in 1997 when the organization was founded.  Perhaps it could still be true today.  But it is not inherently true.  Alexander de Toqueville said it best:  "America is great because she is good.  If ever she fails to be good, she will cease to be great."

Here's an article I've had bookmarked for a couple of weeks, meaning to share with CCN'ers.

It's written by a professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.

It certainly introduced a new word into my vocabulary "Ijtihadi."

....there is an enormous need for Ijtihadi (reformist) as opposed to Jihadi (traditionalist combative) Islam to prevail in the Muslim world, this cannot be achieved if the US and its allies continue on their present path of policy behaviour. Their policy actions, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or Lebanon, have done little to widen the space for Ijtihadi Islamists, who constitute the bulk of Muslim intellectuals, thinkers and activists, to enable them to become more audible against their extremist Jihadi opponents in the conduct of their countries' politics.

(This is Part Two of a three-part essay series.  In Part One, Our Gates of Moscow, I argued that President Bush is correct -- however flawed his reasoning -- in rejecting calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, because of the humanitarian, political, and economic nightmares that such a withdrawal would unleash.)

They're fighting for God and country.  If we're talking about "our boys," that sounds so noble.  If they're Sunni or Shi'a militias, it makes us angry.  The truth is that the tragedy of war is always multiplied when people are fighting "for God and country."

A little under 65 years ago, in December of 1941, the last German drive on Moscow sputtered and died in the bitter Russian winter.  Within a week, the Russians launched a surprise counteroffensive over the frozen ground, and the German spearheads near Moscow were facing encirclement.  The generals begged for permission to withdraw, to straighten and thus shorten their lines, and dig in for the winter.  Hitler refused, saying "Every German soldier must fight and die where he stands."

For Hitler, who saw the war through an egocentric lens of personal triumph or failure, this order had nothing to do with military strategy and everything to do with his messianic vision of succeeding where Napoleon had failed.  To withdraw would be to admit his reach had exceeded his grasp, that the Wehrmacht and the German people were not masters of all they beheld.  Such an admission Hitler would never make.

And thus young German soldiers -- lacking winter clothing and equipment -- wrapped rags around their boots and blankets around their faces, dug into the icy soil of the steppes, and tried to hold their ground.

Hitler's decision was egomania run rampant.  It also saved the German army.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw

It's footage of him in a very contentious argument with a news anchor from Sky News. ....he takes quite a strong opinion against Israel. I'd sure love to know how much Wes would or wouldn't take issue with his postion since "our side" considers Galloway one of the good guys.

It always comes back to Israel in the Middle East, where all roads lead to Jerusalem. No Mid East crisis exists in a vacuum, pluck one strand of the Mid East spider web and a shock reverberates through all of it, and Israel is always at the center of that web. There will never be real Peace now in Baghdad without a similar Peace in Palestine. The only real alternative to escalating region wide warfare is escalating region wide diplomacy, but Bush is pursuing a truncated diplomacy, focused on the familiar players he is willing to talk with. Given that, so too is Iran, but their dialog is with Hezbollah, with Damascus, and with their allied interests inside Baghdad. No single framework exists to encompass region wide diplomacy as a descent into violence continues. With a workable over arching diplomatic framework still non-existent, what options remain to contain the nexus of an ever widening regional conflagration? What options are left TODAY, not just in theory for some later time, because this crisis is evolving by the hour. There is no time to seek new leadership, there is no time to preach morality, there is no time to find a better road, we are stuck with the one we are on with the people who are currently on it, with perhaps one or two weeks left to effect dynamics that will play out over the next one or two years or perhaps much much longer than that.