A unified Iraq 'surge' theory

I had a thought the other day, about a possible deal that might have been struck between Bush and Maliki and Sadr. It sort of makes sense, since it's a nominal win-win for all the major players. There have been bits and pieces of this floating around but I haven't seen anyone else put them together in a suitably cynical way:

Since Bush's 2 most attractive remaining options are: a) pacify Iraq enough to declare victory and get out; or b) stay the course long enough to hand the problem (and thus a share of the historical blame) to the next president -- with a) being obviously preferable --

And since the Shia government, who have previously been opposed to more troops (because they apparently want to get on with it and crush the Sunni insurgency militarily), are suddenly so agreeable on the subject --

And since things have suddenly gotten much quieter in Baghdad, despite only the first 'surge' troops being in place, with Sadr and his militia having been been remarkably well-behaved (some say melted away to Iran or Sadr City to "wait out" the surge) --

What if all of the above is part of a grand deal? What if the Mahdi army really have 'disappeared' to wait out the end of the surge, with the agreement of Bush and Maliki? Think about what would follow: Bush's "give the surge a chance" miraculously works (the surge being necessary to demonstrate an assertive action). The Americans stick around for a few months of peace and prosperity, declare victory, and finish the mission. After which, Sadr and Maliki get on with the business of ethnic cleansing. The Shia crush the Sunnis and take full control. From afar, Bush cheerleaders and neoconservatives back home in America get to work writing their "we gave them freedom and they chose civil war" history books as the US administration and the military, looking reasonably clever after finally pacifying Baghdad, decide to wash their hands of the whole affair. The official story: America won the Iraq war, but the Iraqis were intent on civil war and that was none of America's business.

A bit messy, but sort of a win-win, no?

The trouble with Rudy

Generally speaking, I like Rudy Giuliani. One of the reasons is that he seems competent. Another is that he's not a pure partisan, and I think American politics could use a good helping of people like Rudy and Obama, who at least seem to be able to talk civilly about their opponents. Unfortunately, I don't think he has a chance in a presidential race, even if he can get the Republican nomination. Andrew Sullivan has a Sunday Times column, "They wrote off resilient Rudy a little too soon", discussing the merits of his potential candidacy. It's a fairly positive assessment, but there's one small thing in the article that got me thinking:

He has also dressed in drag on several occasions. You can YouTube a clip of him in full drag being courted by Donald Trump in a department store. New Yorkers loved it. But it doesn’t go down too well in South Carolina.

I'd seen that clip before and not thought much about it, other than Rudy makes a pretty awful-looking woman. But now, upon reflection, I think the problem goes far beyond South Carolina. I don't personally have a problem with it at all; as a fellow straight man who has, for charity, appeared in -- if not drag, then something akin to it -- I too have been photographed in attire that one might call 'non-presidential'. I think it's silly in principle, but there is something to the idea of seeming presidential. Will Rudy's drag appearances hurt him in seeking the nomination? Probably, he will be mocked. We'll probably all get tired of seeing the replays. So can he possibly be taken seriously as a president? Think about all the times you've seen protesters, whether in America or elsewhere, demonstrating against Bush. Or Clinton. Think about all the caricatures and effigies you've seen. Now imagine they were wearing dresses and horrible makeup. I just think Rudy, and America, would never see the end of it.

Surveillance

When I go on and on (and on) about surveillance, tracking, and other forms of privacy invasion here in Britain, it seems as if -- to many people, especially the British -- I come across as paranoid. People point out all the benefits of the technology, and virtually suggest that I give up my tinfoil hat.

I guess sometimes I don't do a good job of explaining my philosophical problem with all this 'benign' surveillance. Maybe I don't do myself any favours when I phrase my argument too stridently, too emotionally, by calling it the "infrastructure of tyranny". (I do believe that's the case, but I should be a little bit more conscious of using the "soft sell" when I care passionately about a topic).

So, here's a short article about the creep of surveillance technology. One quote:

Professor Jeffrey Rosen wrote an article in The New York Times in 2001 showing that surveillance cameras in London, which were put up to combat the threat of terrorism from the Irish Republican Army, are actually used to intimidate vagrants and punks -- and, predictably, to ogle women.

It's not the ogling or harassment of today that worries me so much: It's the mission creep. It's what might come next. I worry about the future. Every time we voluntarily give up some little piece of our privacy or freedom to secure some benefit, we lose it forever. We lose it to leaders of the future whom we haven't yet met, who will use it to further agendas that we can't yet know. Should we be so trusting?