In re: McCrystal. A couple of things that should pop right out as the nut graphs of this whole affair but that (typically) have been totally buried by the media in the whole scandaliciousness frenzy surrounding the Rolling Stone article by , Michael Hastings. One, Rolling Stone still does some awesome journalism. Two, mainstream media=total failure.

The sense of wonderment that pervaded on most of the TV puditocracy, e.g. “How is this guy ever going to get access again?”

Access isn’t the point because he’s now got the story of his life. Fuck access. See John Stewart.

And it was an outstanding bit of journalism. The “scandalous” stuff was really in the first 500 words. The rest of the article is a very illuminating piece on Gen. McCrystal — a soldier’s soldier if ever there was one — and our strategy in Afghanistan. For those of you who can’t be arsed to read 1,200 words of the most important journalism of 2010 here are the nut graphs of the Hasting’s piece:

The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they’ve been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. “Fuck, when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun on,” says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. “I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they’re all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don’t understand it themselves. But we’re fucking losing this thing.”

Later on:

When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal’s side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn’t hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France’s nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. “Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan,” he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. “It’s all very cynical, politically,” says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. “Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there’s nothing for us there.”

Whatever the nature of the new plan, the delay underscores the fundamental flaws of counterinsurgency. After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. “Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem,” says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. “A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we’re picking winners and losers” – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word “victory” when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.

Of course, Stanley McChrystal is not in charge any more is he? And what we are not getting right now is any kind of rational debate on exactly what the fuck we are planning on with regards to an exit strategy for a war that has drug on for one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-NINE years and shows no sign of being over inside of a decade.

It seems to me that in our hate and fear of Al Quaida is holding hands with with a whole series of national neuroses that we can bundle up under the label, Vietnam Syndrome, e.g. support the troops at all costs, keep the faith, the illusion that winning only requires enough will power and the right strategy, etc. ( Read the article for why all of this is relevant in regard to Gen. McCrystal in particular but for the current generation of military upper brass in general.)

Looking at Vietn… sorry, Afghanistan through those lenses we have totally overlooked the really important thing about war in general; it is supposed to further the national interest.

A U.S. Marine, from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, has a close call after Taliban fighters opened fire near Garmser in Helmand Province of Afghanistan May 18, 2008. The Marine was not injured. (REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic)

Outside of finding and killing some murderous douchebags hiding out (mostly in Pakistan) in caves and mud huts — a job that can be done by a few handfuls of drones, spies and special operators — where is the national interest in spending hundreds (if not thousands) of billions of dollars and thousands of lives here?

Hundreds of billions of dollars. Do you have any idea what we could have done with that (borrowed) money? For the war in Afghanistan we could have built a coast-to-coast high speed railway. We could have sent every graduating senior in America to four years of college for the past nine years. We could have had free freakin’ healthcare for everyone.

So, this is kind of a big deal and one way or another is going to have a long-term impact on things in what used to be called, the Near East.

Video provided both by the protesters and by the Israeli Defense Forces shows that the pro-Palestinian activists on board the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, were not offering mere passive resistance to the IDF. On the other hand, they were civilians on board ships in international waters being illegally boarded by Israeli soldiers and they had a right to self-defense even if such was near-suicidal.

For everyone who does not closely follow the always-convoluted-anyway threads of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, here is why this is a big deal.

First the PR and International Perception Angle. Despite the treatment of the IDF commandoes on the Turkish ships, the whole affair comes off as heavy-handed and an overreaction. Since the Gaza incursion followed the disastrous Goldstone Commission report which accused Israel of war crimes, Israel is beginning to lose the critical was of international opinion with regards to its “Palestinian problem.”

Comparisons (not good ones) are already being made to the 1947 seizure of the “Exodus” ship by the British that was pivotal to turning worldwide perception of the Zionist cause towards the establishment of the state of Israel.

Israel is already fighting against a creeping international perception that it is slouching its way to becoming an apartheid state. If the Palestinians can finally take the hint from this incident and begin to work its way towards engaging in a serious, systematic campaign of non-violent non-cooperation against the occupation then this will be a game-changing moment.

Second, Turkey is one of the few friends Israel has in the region. The two nations conduct $2.5 billion in trade and until recently had close military ties. But relations have frayed since the 2008 military incursion into Gaza. Turkey is a member of NATO. An attack by a non-NATO member on a NATO member’s ship on the high seas could — if it was wished to be seen as such — be construed be an act of war, obliging the member nations of NATO to come to Turkey’s assistance.

This won’t happen (yet?). But look at it this way: What if the flotilla had been pro-democracy protesters approaching Iran (or Burma) and had been attacked by forces from that nation? You would have a difficult time finding anyone willing to criticize Turkey if it wanted to take a hard line. And as long as we’re talking tiptoeing around the subject let’s just state for the record that Turkey has a real, western-type military (unlike, Syria, Jordan, Iran, etc.) and would present serious problems for Israel if push started coming to shove.

Mixed up in all of this is the ever-present tension between the moderate Islamic civilian government of Turkey, led by Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the steadfastly secular and Israeli-leaning Turkish military.

AS OF LATE MONDAY: Turkey has recalled its own ambassador from Israel but has not yet expelled Israel’s ambassador in Akara.

There have been a few reports that Turkey is threatening to escalate things by escorting another convoy with Turkish naval vessels but I have not seen that anywhere in the western press yet. ( Note: That report has been edited to remove reference to potential Turkish escalation. Original citation here)

Late Monday, the U.N. Security Council condemmed the attack. Turkish and other Arab nations wanted a sterner statement but the U.S. provided the necessary cover for Israel (as usual) and got the resolution watered down somewhat. Do assume that our general weariness of flack-catching for this kind of stuff is being rather forcefully conveyed to the Israeli government.

Palestinian Children as Na'vi. Photo: Reuters

Palestinian residents hold weekly protests along the wall dividing Israeli settlements from Palestinian land. Back in September, Israeli border guards fired live ammo at an Al Jazeera correspondent and tear gassed protesters.

Despite the Obama administration’s fairly strong language towards Israel and the Palestinians in regards to moving forward to some sort of permanent settlement, attitudes on both sides have become more, not less accomodationist.

A couple of weeks ago, former Israeli prime minister and current defense minister, Ehud Barak finally said the unsayable at a conference in Israel:

If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic… If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don’t, it is an apartheid state.

Israel is in a deep quandry. Per the Economist’s Democracy in America Blog:

[Palestinian intellectual and activist Sari] Nusseibeh now believes the two-state solution has become virtually impossible. There are too many Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and the Israeli political system is incapable of making the concessions that would be necessary even to halt further settlements, let alone to withdraw them and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Mr Nusseibeh is a keen political thinker, a non-violent man who opposed the 2001 “second intifada” and has many close Israeli friends. His history of negotiations with Israeli authorities began with his secret talks with the right-wing government of Yitzhak Shamir in the 1980s. His assessment fits with the history of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue over the past 60-odd years: each side has rejected every plausible deal at every available opportunity, only to look back a decade or two later with bitter regret.

If the prospects for a two-state solution look ever less likely, the idea of annexation of the occupied territories is a complete non-starter. Non-Jews already account for 20% of the Israeli population and Arab-Israelis already deal with discrimination. Admission of the approximately 3.8 million Palestinians into Israel with 7.4 million people would call into question the entire idea of the Jewish state. Any single-state solution that does not grant full rights to non-Jews and citizens of the former occupied territories leads inevitably to some form or another of apartheid.

And you thought politics in the United States was fraught?

Both the pro-freedom Green Movement and the pro-government forces are revving up for a huge confrontation tomorrow. Scott Lucas at Enduring America thinks this could be a tipping point:

What is important, in the meantime, is that there is a significant difference on the eve of this event compared to the political environment before Ashura (27 December). On that occasion, the only prominent opposition figure who made a move was former President Mohammad Khatami, and his memorial speech for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri was rudely broken up by pro-Government protesters. Mousavi, Karroubi, and other senior clerics were all muted about the demonstrations to come. And, after those protests, “conservative” figures such as Ali Larijani were unstinting in their criticism of the “violent” and “foreign-backed” Green movement.

Now all these figures are in play. Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami have put down their political markers for a big opposition show on Thursday and promised more to come. Rafsanjani, for the first time since early December, may have made his manoeuvre to challenge the Government. And Larijani, joined by others within the establishment, is now targeting Ahmadinejad as much as any Green protester.

This political change should not overshadow the importance of the demonstrations on the ground tomorrow. The demands “from below” for legitimacy, justice, and freedom are just as necessary as any high-profile statement or even “ultimatum”.

To follow events tomorrow (probably starting about 7 or 8 p.m. on Wednesday Central Time), the L.A. Times has an excellent blog, Bablylon and Beyond. The National Iranian-American Council blog and Andrew Sullivan will no doubt be aggregating news.

Regardless, do spare a thought for the thousands of brave men and women of all ages who will be risking their lives tomorrow and beyond.

In other words, if 1989 is your analogy (and there are reasons it shouldn’t be), listen to the American president at that time. First do no harm. Publicly deplore the violence and remind Iran’s leaders of the universality of the right to free assembly and expression. But do not call for the regime’s overthrow, much less threaten to bring it about. It can be painful to do (mostly) nothing, but acting “flamboyantly”, as the elder Bush so memorably called it, would be worse.

Go read the whole post.

I’m having a brutal week. A client has been down for three days with a broken RAID array. Previous backups of vital data are corrupted because one drive failed and one drive has bad sectors. Nasty business.

Limiting the power of government to take precedence over the rights of individuals is crucial. ProReforma puts it this way in one of its educational brochures: “No country, in no time has had success with a democratic model that grants the right of excessive intervention to government.” Yet Guatemala keeps trying to make it work. “Through six decades since World War II and after many attempts” by all sides, be they “populists or elitists, civilians or soldiers, from the left or from the right, it is evident that the system of intervention, mercantilism and paternalism has produced neither prosperity nor peace.”

How would strong individual rights change the future? Mr. Ayau argues that when individual rights always trump interests the culture that underfunds and politicizes the courts will begin to change. As to poverty, consider that would-be entrepreneurs are barred from competing in many markets because powerful interests make the rules and regulations. Without a market economy the country cannot create wealth.

There is nothing new in the classical liberal argument for individual rights. What is new here is the scope of this project. Recognizing that the beneficiaries of its proposed reform are ordinary Guatemalans whose rights are regularly violated by the political class, ProReforma has spent two years on a national education campaign.

Tapping into popular frustration, a campaign brochure argues that Guatemalans must do more than chase the “vain illusion” that “some day a good and illuminated man will come to power.” They must force change to “a style of government that will facilitate success for whoever comes to power.”

ProReforma needed 5,000 petition signatures for its proposal to be introduced into Congress for debate; it has collected more than 73,000. Now the ideological left has begun a campaign of its own, marked by vituperative and personal attacks against ProReforma’s promoters. The proposal might be defeated, but the good news is that ProReforma’s civic education project has already succeeded. Today, more Guatemalans are aware of their inalienable rights. The question is how they can wrest those rights from the collectivist left.

Where to find on-the-scene reports via twitter: El Periodico, Noticias Guatemala, Prensa Libre. Also, follow #escandalogt. Some Guatemalan twitterers were saying last night they planned to print out “V for Vendetta” masks and wear them en masse to the demonstrations today. Organizers on Twitter urged all who planned to participate to report anomalies or rights abuses by authorities, and observe cautionary guidelines to avoid violence.

Online reports are coming in that governors, under duress from the state, have used public funds to ship busloads of primarily poor, indigenous citizens from the interior and north of the country to participate in government-planned pro-Colom demonstrations. Twitterers on the scene say the government-organized, pro-Colom demonstrations number about 2,500 participants as of 10am PT and include a patriotic musical performance.