Well, Bill, since the claim you wrote was "any time during the past 30 years," I get to use the Bush/Cheney administration to falsify your statement. Were they not in charge for a good chunk of the past 30 years?
You'll have to excuse me, but the actual record of that administration, and the actual evidence of their rejection of an Iranian olive branch, count for a great deal more than the empty phrase "less than it appeared," and the - is it mean to be a pejorative charge - charge that I have "antipathy" towards the Bush administration.
It is interesting how reliably you leap to their defense, even to the point of arguing that they were not disinterested in a rapprochement with Iran.
What makes this idea plausible to me is the relative openness with which the Iranians have advanced their program. Look and India and Pakistan - they kept everything under wraps under they were ready to surprise the world with their offensive nuclear capability. Look at Israel.
Iran is operating more like North Korea - Hey, everyone, we did this! We achieved that! - every step of the way. We know that North Korea spent a decade trading pieces of its program for US government cheese.
Now, the deterrence argument is plausible as well, but I ask you, if you were the Iranian government, concerned about American and Israeli aggression, what would be a more effective way to protect yourself? With nuclear breakout capacity intended to serve as a deterrent, or by reaching a deal to eliminate American hostility?
Iran could have come in from the cold at any time during the past 30 years if it had simply adhered to accepted international standards of conduct and indicated a willingness to join the international community.
Oh, bull. Look at the forces working to undermine the Obama's administration's warming of relations, in Israel and the US. There is a longstanding grudge against the Iranian government. The notion that, say, the Cheney/Bush administration would have happen to make friends is without basis. Have you not read about their decision to slap away the olive branch Iran offered in 2002?
This piece reads like a condensed version of a much longer essay. The particular claim about "Asia" isn't spelled out at all, so it's impossible to understand what she's talking about.
Iran has not been a normal country on the world stage in over thirty years. It was a revolutionary country, then a war-torn country, and then an international pariah.
Charountaki writes, "Iran is thus called to control its regional power and sell it at a high price." Perhaps this has been the plan all along with the nuclear program: to exchange it for an opportunity to come in out of the cold.
American actions only appear to involve supporting "both sides" if you view the Syria and Iraq conflicts the way the jihadists do - as a fight between Sunnis and Shiites.
But American policymakers don't view things that way. Their approach to the region is perpendicular to that axis, and based on a different axis: liberal(ish)/democratic(ish)/pro-western(ish) vs. anti-western, illiberal, and anti-democratic.
Kindly note that one need not accept that this framing is correct in order to understand that it is the framing being used by the United States.
That RT piece is interesting mainly for the insight it provides into Russian thinking. The claim that al Qaeda is in a position, or close to a position, to establish a state in Iraq is absurd, but illustrative of the Russians' fear (genuine or ginned up) of Sunni jihadis. Note the discipline with which Mr. Colmain repeats the Assad regime's terminology, like "so-called insurgency" or "so-called opposition," "terrorists" as the generic term for the rebels, and his use of that wonderful phrase "it's very clear that" before he tells a big whopper.
President Obama doesn't have to issue a veto against Menendez's bill. Such a bill will never pass Congress. Neither Harry Reid nor John Boehner will even let it come up for a vote.
And you're quite right that the weaponry being sold to Iraq isn't appropriate for the security challenge posed by the radical Sunni terrorists. Those items are straight-up military wish-list items, intended to bolster Iraq's conventional military capability against conventional enemies like foreign militaries.
Recasting this issue in terms of privacy, as opposed to the reasonableness of searches or the applicability of rules designed for telephone switch boards and paper envelopes, makes a lot of sense from a legal, constitution, and political perspective.
"Why do they tolerate the impending constitution’s creation of a government ruled by the defense and interior ministries and the trashing of the judicial system through the preservation of military trials for civilians?"
I don't know. Why are groups that were opposing Mubarak in 2011 supporting the restoration of Mubarakism in 2013?
Is it the experience under Morsi? Did his term in office, ending with massive crowds in the street calling him "Pharaoh" and demanding his ouster, sour the Egyptian center-left on democracy, to the point of making Mubarakism look good in hindsight?
'The more Egypt’s “liberals” help this process, the greater will be the destruction of everything they claim to value.'
Are they helping this process? It seems that the labor/youth movements that began the anti-Mubarak protests, and the anti-Morsi protests, have themselves become targets of the Sisi regime.
Or are you referring to a different segment of the body politic when you say "liberals?"
Since the Egyptian people very clearly did not agree with the notion of waiting for elections to sweep Morsi from power, it's not entirely clear how America doing so would gain us cache with the Egypian public.
I'm trying to imagine how this would work. The Egyptian people are in the streets in huge numbers demanding Morsi's ouster. The Morsi government is getting more and more violent. At this point, the US somehow intervenes - rhetorically? with threats of aid cutoffs? - to insist that Morsi remains in power. This resistance to the Egypian popular will, in defense of growing tyrant, is supposed to 1) be a substantive exercise in the promotion of democracy and 2) advance our position among the Egyptian public?
Except that the United States is using its influence to push the Egyptian military regime to hold the elections it has promised, and allow itself to be voted out of power - just as it did the last time an Egyptian military government seized power, in the aftermath of Mubarak's ouster.
The connection between the Sisi government's strategic short-sightedness is its handling of the Muslim Brotherhood, and American malignancy after World War Two, is not entirely obvious.
Why the need to threadjack everything into these generic, ritualized denunciations of the United States? There is a big, complex, busy world out there; why the need to divert every discussion of events back to the United States?
Ultimately, who you're doing when you deflect like this is American-centric, and self-centered. This determination to bull over other topics, to treat them merely as a launching point for generic tirades against the United States, is a way of elevated the United States, and your critique of it, above what is happening in Egypt.
The United States IS pressing the military regime to "get out of government." The American position is that the military regime needs to follow through with the elections to install a democratic government - again, as they did the first time they took over, following their ouster of Mubarak.
Pushing for democratic reform is always the right thing, but trying to draw an equivalency between Egypt and the Gulf monarchies you mention doesn't really make sense. There is a democratic opposition and even government system in place in Egypt. The parties are organized, and they just had elections last year. Operationally, it's just a matter of actually carrying out the functions of elections. In the Gulf monarchies, there really isn't a democratic system waiting in the wings, available to take over. The pursuit of democracy there is at a much earlier position. Supporting democracy is two very different programs in those two situations.
It's funny - you start off saying that we should be "pressing the Gulf states to democratize," and then insist that we should have a policy of "stay out of the way" in the Gulf states. So...which is it? Should we be pushing the Gulf monarchies to reform, or should be staying out of their business?
The tricky part is that both statements are true at the same time: a level playing increases the odds of a negotiated settlement while also increasing the odds of a protracted, bloody stalemate. Such a development would reduce the chances of the Assad regime crushing the rebellion, but it increases the chances of both the outcome that is better than that, and the outcome that is worse.
"There are no rules, and punctilious categorization and tsking from afar don’t mean squat...It’s armchair arrogance of the first order to pretend that there are “rules” or “norms” to govern conduct that our and everyone else’s "
Thank God we have a system of international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, that doesn't give in to this nihilistic fatalism.
"The actions of the guys in “the government” are indistinguishable (except for Narrative convenience) from those “Allahu Akhbar!” enthusiasts"
The numbers suggest otherwise. The HRW investigators on the ground, who put more stock in the evidence they gather than in comfortable "pox on both houses" narratives, certainly don't agree with you.
Firing mortar rounds into a location where troops are actively fighting, and not taking sufficient care (or use a weapon of sufficient accuracy) to minimize civilian casualties - that is, what the report accuses the rebels of doing - is wrong. It demonstrates insufficient effort to protect non-combatants while going after combatants.
The government's use of barrel bombs, on the other hand, looks like an effort to kill the fish by draining the pond. It's a deliberate massacre, with the civilians being actual targets.
I'm quite happy to discount the theory that the US has an interest in destabilizing Turkey.
Where does this idea that the United States wants a less-stable Middle East come from? The US government has spent the past century making regional stability its core foreign policy goal in the region. A stable Middle East means a steady supply of oil, the absence of hostile revolutionary regimes/movements, and the avoidance of damaging oil price spikes.
On top of that, Turkey is an important NATO ally, as well as a top-tier MENA-region ally.
According to this "destabilization theory," what is the United States supposed to gain from regional instability?
I don't know very much about Turkish politics. Can Erdoganism - that is, the embedding of the Muslim religious right within electoral democracy, as opposed to it being hostile to electoral democracy - survive Erdogan, or is it too closely associated with him personally?
With the Senate Majority Leader against it, and the President against it, supporting this bill seems like an easy way for politicians to posture as "pro-Israel" without actually having to do anything that would undermine the President or the Iranian deal.
Which of the 13 Democrats "mean it," and which are so posturing, is an interesting question.
"I’ve heard arguments, well, but this way we can be assured and the Iranians will know that if negotiations fail even new and harsher sanctions will be put into place. Listen, I don’t think the Iranians have any doubt that Congress would be more than happy to pass more sanctions legislation. We can do that in a day, on a dime."
"Mullah Omar whose area of control was a tiny part of the country,":
In point of fact, the Taliban controlled about 90% of the country, with only a small part of the far north/northwest in Northern Alliance hands on 9/11.
The bases operated by Omar's funder and son-in-law, Osama bin Laden, were absolutely in the areas controlled by the Taliban government.
BTW, about those 'counter-productive drone strikes' - where, exactly, are all of those increased terrorist attacks that, I've been assured for years, are their inevitable result?
Our objective there was to aggravate the Sunni-Shia divide
I see this absurdity surprisingly often. Look at American regional policy over the decades: propping up Mubarak and the House of Saud, backing Saddam as a check on Iran, throwing Iraq out of Kuwait. American policy has always been about promoting stability in the region so the oil will keep flowing. Promoting Sunni-Shiite conflict would run directly contrary to that goal.
The Bush administration's close friends in the House of Saud certainly didn't want to see Shiite-Sunni conflict in the region.
No question, Bill, American air support and organizing on the ground was a necessary component to the Norther Alliance's victory.
My point was not to claim that US action played no role in the fall of the Taliban, but to point out that there were two different actions taken: toppling the Taliban/routing al Qaeda took place in 2001. The invasion of Afghanistan took place after that.
Our problem in Afghanistan was after we had rooted out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and after Karzai in Kabul and other warlords around the country began asserting power in their fiefdoms (much as had always been the case in Afghanistan), we attempted that fool’s errand called “nation-building”
I think you're leaving out something when you offer "nation building," discussed as some sort of altruistic mission, vs. counter-terrorism, as if dispensing with al Qaeda was the only national-interest-based action the Bush administration envisioned there. As the Iraq War, and the low priority they put on al Qaeda both before 9/11 and from 2002 forward, demonstrate, these people believed very strongly in Great Game geopolitics. They believed in toppling hostile governments, installing client regimes, and locating American military forces in those formerly-hostile countries in order to project American power.
Yes, they wanted to nation-build in Afghanistan, but as a means to the end of establishing a reliable client state to be "an ally in the War on Terror."
You're right about policy going forward, but it's important to understand what brought us to this position in the first place.
Iraq, located on the border between Iran and Saudi Arabia, was intended to the new basing country for the troops previously stationed in Saudi Arabia - that is, the main home for the major land forces the US keeps in the region. The Bush administration was quite open about its desire to remove the forces from the KSA, and to use Iraqi bases to "project power throughout the region."
You seem to be engaging in a common fallacy people fall into when looking at American actions in the Middle East: to observe what has happened, and then make up a narrative to explain why it was exactly what we intended all along.
The focus here is on the American invasion of Afghanistan, a decade-long effort involving tens of thousands of troops in the country.
It's worth going back over the timeline and remembering how and when that happened.
The Taliban was driven out of Kabul not by Americans but by the Northern Alliance. This took place on November 12, 2001. There were fewer than 1000 American troops in the entire country.
The battle of Tora Bora, which could have been and should have been the end of the action, took place from December 12-17 2001. The total number of western ground troops involved in the action was in the dozens.
The invasion of Afghanistan took place in 2002, after the Taliban had fallen, and after al Qaeda had been routed from their home bases and all but annihilated.
People talk, rightly, about the invasion of Iraq being an effort to achieve geo-political goals, with the connection to terrorism being merely an overlay for public consumption, but this point is made much less frequently about Afghanistan.
The Bush administration carried out a response to the 9/11 attacks, and then it carried out the invasion of Afghanistan.
"With military bases worldwide, why would anyone imagine that the US wouldn’t retain a base in Afghanistan?"
Because we didn't retain one in Iraq.
The US does have bases all over the world, but they tend to be in more stable countries that are solid allies. Afghanistan, like Iraq, is neither.
There was a time (Jan 2001-Jan 2009) that US foreign policy was being run by people who thought that having large American combat forces operating out of bases in war-torn countries like Iraq was a good idea, but those people have had a rough few years.
I had no idea that Arizona was so far behind on solar plants. Neighbors like Texas, California, and Nevada are going great guns on commercial solar. I wonder why Arizona is lagging.
Perhaps it's because Arizona has never been a major energy state, or a major environmentalist state, so green energy just doesn't have a already-powerful lobby to jump on board.
OK, "Bei Dawei," please tell us some more about the absence of racism experienced by a black kid in Barack Obama's position. Really, give us the benefit of your obviously broad experience.
I daresay, Bill, that the people eliding the issue of law enforcement procedures in this country - the ones who can't bring themselves to squarely discuss what happened here and use euphemisms like "following standard procedure" - are the ones missing the wider picture here.
But be that as it may, this sudden, passionate concern that so many on the right are expressing about exploitive working conditions and inadequate compensation is music to my liberal ears, and doubly so because of the honest, principled place from which it comes.
Very true...and yet, we know that this goes well beyond this particular mayor. It's not as if he was sticking his neck out in any way when he issued that mandate. Quite the opposite.
I'm not entirely clear what President Obama has to do with this case, or what his "tune" is.
BTW, President Obama is a black man who grew up in the United States, so it's probably a safe bet that he's quite familiar with the problem of police mistreatment of arrestees.
If the law enforcement officers had demonstrated a little more discretion, we might actually be talking about the exploitation of low-wage workers instead of arrest procedures - but we're not, and that's a shame.
It's more than a little embarrassing that our ordinary police procedures are so extreme that the Indians would assume that the diplomat had to have been singled out for egregious treatment.
It's like eating something in a restaurant, gagging on it, accusing the chef of trying to poison you, and then discovering that, no, that's the way the minestrone soup always tastes there.
Your point was quite clear. It was also wrong. The judge didn't pull punches or go easy on the NSA. The actions you cited as evidence don't actually demonstrate what you thought they did.
Bill, the judge wasn't pulling punches by using the language “substantial likelihood of success." This was a hearing for a preliminary injunction, to enjoin the NSA's gathering program while the underlying case against it is being litigated. "A substantial likelihood of success" is the legal standard he was being asked to apply.
"Second, although Judge Leon granted the request for an injunction that blocks the collection of data for Klayman and a co-plaintiff, he stayed action on his ruling pending a US Government appeal."
That is a near-universal step in the granting of an injunction against an ongoing government action. There would have to be some truly extraordinary circumstances - like, somebody is liable to get killed - for the trial court judge not to do so. If he didn't, then the appellate court would almost certainly do it for him.
Leon pointed out that nowadays cell phone data includes much more than just the number you called. It also includes, for instance, your location when you made the call, functioning in the way GPS does. For the NSA perpetually to collect intrusive data without a warrant on millions of persons not suspected of wrongdoing is a very different proposition than the 1979 case.
This is a legitimate point, but a bad example to support it. In 1979, the land-line telephone number information also provided your location - the house/apartment/office that had that phone number.
Still, the point holds. Not only is there much more information being provided now, but computing technology allows the government to do a lot more with that information.
I'm afraid your gut is wrong, since the conversion of Egypt and Syria both took place prior to the actions of the Roman Empire to spread Christianity (in fact, they both went Christian while the religion was being persecuted by the Roman government), and before the Byzantine Empire even existed.
A fine, brave attempt to move the goal posts to the Land of Useful Generality, but the question was specifically how the Levant became Christian - a question that really has nothing to do with "Arab Christianity," since the area did not become Arabized until centuries later.
Al Qaeda doesn't belong alongside the other groups you mention. They are not an "identity" group. The command the support of no populations, but are in fact hunted and despised, and waging war on, the communities from which they came - very unlike the Tamils, or the Hutu militias.
Individual situations have individual facts, and they're worth understanding, instead of sweeping distinct and different events under a single grand theory.
But since the actions were, as you say, "common that era," then their usage wouldn't have been seen as barbaric.
Notably, the Muslim forces were not termed "barbarians," either. They were talked about as bad guys for sure, but in the same manner that a European enemy would have been described.
Oh, ffs, prosecuting people who leak classified information is not "doing everything he can to crush dissent."
You don't do your cause any favors by indulging in hysterical language. It may make your partisans cheer louder, but it makes everyone who isn't already on the bus dismiss you.
"They see nothing wrong with Israel as a state with one social group at the top and another group brutally oppressed at the bottom."
I don't think this is true; it gives Americans too much credit for understanding events overseas, and too little for their basically democratic outlook.
I think American support for Israel is better explained as a failure to appreciate that the situation has changed in the past 50 years. Americans are still rooting for plucky little Israel, surrounded on all sides by hostile, more-powerful Arab neighbors, and they see the treatment of the Palestinians as a wartime measure used to keep the country safe against terrorists.
None of which is particularly accurate in 2013 (or 2003 or even 1993), but that's the narrative that Americans grew up on.
Is your right to vote cosmetic? Your freedom of speech? Of protest? Your freedom to join a political party?
Setting aside the real material gains you sweep away, such as the large reduction in poverty: are political and civil rights so meaningless, so cosmetic?
This isn't 1956, and the statement " It most assuredly is not manifestly in the domestic political interest of an American President to insist that the US and Israel are on the same page," would be laughed at by any politician capable of being elected to the state legislature.
Sheesh, all the undeniable evidence of the power of the Israel lobby and voters staring us in the face, and Bill somehow comes to the conclusion that there are no political consequences for a President to be seen as anti-Israel! How is that even possible?
"There is no “nuclear deal” as yet. There is simply an interim agreement to later tackle the real issue of Iran’s nuclear program."
Thank you, Dr. Semantics. What, exactly, does this have to with the issue of Obama's alleged habit of hewing to Israel's line? Did Israel support "an interim agreement to later tackle the real issue of Iran’s nuclear program?" Does Netanyahu appear to consider it meaningless, or consistent with his own policy preferences?
"Your uncritical admiration for Obama is evident in your posts, Joe, but you appear to overlook what a weak and indecisive President he is."
People who dive right into the psychobabble generally do so because they can't answer the substance. I can't help but notice that, in your entire piece, you fail to address the actual point: whether Obama's actions are, or are not, consistent with the desires of the Israeli government.
But you know what's really funny? You started off trying to argue that Obama's rhetoric - not actions, but rhetoric - about the Iranian nuclear deal and Israel give us a solid indication of where he stands, but by the end, you're arguing that his rhetoric is meaningless.
It says that they're constrained by political forces - something that internet commenters don't have to take into account, but officerholders do.
Tell me, Bill Bodden, was Ted Cruz's government shutdown strategy a demonstration of moral courage, because he didn't pay any attention to any outside political considerations, or was it stupidity that led to failure?
I think you're a little confused about what "breakout capacity" means. It doesn't mean you're building a bomb, but developing the ability to build one later if you change your mind.
It is manifestly in the domestic political interest of both an Israeli Prime Minister and an American President to insist that the countries are on the same page, even when they are not. American Presidents have to worry about the pro-Israel lobby and voters, while Israeli leaders have to worry about appearing to screw up the country's relationship with the global superpower that backs it.
The Iranian nuclear deal itself, and the stiff-arms Netanyahu has received on his policy efforts, would seem to suggest that the administration is not quite the "true believers" you wish to portray them as.
When evaluating politicians, it's wiser to pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
"Our best efforts to reach Palestinian-Israeli peace will come to nothing if Iran succeeds in building atomic bombs."
Looking at this strictly as a geo-political contest: if Netanyahu wants to use the peace talks as a hostage, he'd better provide some signs that the hostage is alive. What are those of us who support an I-P peace deal supposed to worry about losing?
If there was a promising, ongoing peace process going on that an Iranian nuclear program might undermine, talking about threats to that process might carry some weight, but based on Netanyahu's behavior over the past few years, why would anyone sacrifice any other foreign policy goal for what looks like such an illusory hope?
As a player on the world stage, Netanyahu is as incompetent as he is vicious.
American Anwar al-Awlaki organizing a plot to have a Nigerian carry a bomb onto an American plane and blow it up over Detroit is part of an internal Yemeni conflict.
I know, because Vladimir Putin's media organ told me so.
The Democratic Party oligarchs were most likely hostile to Mandela for his socialist and rebel credentials
In point of fact, the Democratic Party sponsored the bills imposing sanctions against South Africa, as well as the resolution calling for Mandela's release.
on economic issues he is an Eisenhower Republican and Mandela wouldn’t approve
I don't know, Professor. The Nelson Mandela who went into prison wouldn't have approved. The Nelson Mandela who actually governed as the South African head of state was a fairly moderate figure.
I have to question his third proposal. It seems to me that the National Transitional Council already did an excellent job expressing a vision for the country's future.
Professor, could we get a better translation of this passage?
we will not be deceived by the tricks of the regime which promotes to the West as this regime deceives Egyptians same as deceiving the international community under the allegations of the war of terrorism & in fact is fighting for establishing the country of repression and Tyranny.
Do you see how you moved the goal posts? Whereas you initially claimed that including such a condition was unremarkable and not a "poison pill" that would scrap the deal, you're now arguing instead that such a condition is a good idea (from the point of view of the American troops).
And, no question, from the point of view of American military personnel, being immune from local law is, indeed, a very good thing.
But that wasn't the question. The question was whether the inclusion of that demand is a heavy lift, a condition that is unacceptable to the Afghans, and is likely to scrap a SOFA and result in the withdrawal of the troops, and that is a question that is answered not by considering the opinion of the American personnel who might or might not be stationed there, but that of the Afghan public and political leadership.
Well, Brian, our army could maintain an occupation the way virtually all occupations have been maintained throughout history: without getting the locals' endorsement of any sort of Status of Forces Agreement. It's true that there cannot be an occupation without the troops being immune from local law. It's also true that the United States doesn't need to have the Afghan government's permission to set up shop in the country, as the example of the Taliban demonstrates.
So, we find the United States asking permission to keep troops in the country, while also insisting that the Afghans sign off on that presence and that immunity, and "threatening" not to remain the country at all if they don't sign off.
And we know that exactly this path was taken before, in Iraq; we know how it ended up; and we know that the Obama administration is pursuing the same path in Afghanistan.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Reading those "Republican" myths, I'm struck by how many of them have migrated to the far left.
Nope, informed comment.
Lisa Jackson is mounting the coal industry's head on the wall of her den as we speak.
Obama's EPA rocks.
Lisa Jackson rocked, and her Clean Air Section Chief/successor rocks, too.
Well, Bill, since the claim you wrote was "any time during the past 30 years," I get to use the Bush/Cheney administration to falsify your statement. Were they not in charge for a good chunk of the past 30 years?
You'll have to excuse me, but the actual record of that administration, and the actual evidence of their rejection of an Iranian olive branch, count for a great deal more than the empty phrase "less than it appeared," and the - is it mean to be a pejorative charge - charge that I have "antipathy" towards the Bush administration.
It is interesting how reliably you leap to their defense, even to the point of arguing that they were not disinterested in a rapprochement with Iran.
What makes this idea plausible to me is the relative openness with which the Iranians have advanced their program. Look and India and Pakistan - they kept everything under wraps under they were ready to surprise the world with their offensive nuclear capability. Look at Israel.
Iran is operating more like North Korea - Hey, everyone, we did this! We achieved that! - every step of the way. We know that North Korea spent a decade trading pieces of its program for US government cheese.
Now, the deterrence argument is plausible as well, but I ask you, if you were the Iranian government, concerned about American and Israeli aggression, what would be a more effective way to protect yourself? With nuclear breakout capacity intended to serve as a deterrent, or by reaching a deal to eliminate American hostility?
Iran could have come in from the cold at any time during the past 30 years if it had simply adhered to accepted international standards of conduct and indicated a willingness to join the international community.
Oh, bull. Look at the forces working to undermine the Obama's administration's warming of relations, in Israel and the US. There is a longstanding grudge against the Iranian government. The notion that, say, the Cheney/Bush administration would have happen to make friends is without basis. Have you not read about their decision to slap away the olive branch Iran offered in 2002?
This piece reads like a condensed version of a much longer essay. The particular claim about "Asia" isn't spelled out at all, so it's impossible to understand what she's talking about.
Wow, great essay.
Iran has not been a normal country on the world stage in over thirty years. It was a revolutionary country, then a war-torn country, and then an international pariah.
Charountaki writes, "Iran is thus called to control its regional power and sell it at a high price." Perhaps this has been the plan all along with the nuclear program: to exchange it for an opportunity to come in out of the cold.
Yes, JT, Bill was tongue-in-cheek, but John was dead serious below.
Just so you know, John, some of can recognize and even appreciate a joke when we see it.
Loved the "refrained from giving Jerusalem to Walt Disney" line. Lol.
American actions only appear to involve supporting "both sides" if you view the Syria and Iraq conflicts the way the jihadists do - as a fight between Sunnis and Shiites.
But American policymakers don't view things that way. Their approach to the region is perpendicular to that axis, and based on a different axis: liberal(ish)/democratic(ish)/pro-western(ish) vs. anti-western, illiberal, and anti-democratic.
Kindly note that one need not accept that this framing is correct in order to understand that it is the framing being used by the United States.
I think it might be the Assyrian Empire at a particular moment in history.
I didn't think my last sentence was particularly opaque. What part of "conventional enemies like foreign militaries" are you having trouble with?
You have a bad habit of not understanding things, realizing you don't understand them, and deciding you're against them anyway.
Hold on a second: "Non-lethal aid was terminated" means that non-lethal aid was, an one time, being supplied.
That RT piece is interesting mainly for the insight it provides into Russian thinking. The claim that al Qaeda is in a position, or close to a position, to establish a state in Iraq is absurd, but illustrative of the Russians' fear (genuine or ginned up) of Sunni jihadis. Note the discipline with which Mr. Colmain repeats the Assad regime's terminology, like "so-called insurgency" or "so-called opposition," "terrorists" as the generic term for the rebels, and his use of that wonderful phrase "it's very clear that" before he tells a big whopper.
What does the white on that map represent?
President Obama doesn't have to issue a veto against Menendez's bill. Such a bill will never pass Congress. Neither Harry Reid nor John Boehner will even let it come up for a vote.
And you're quite right that the weaponry being sold to Iraq isn't appropriate for the security challenge posed by the radical Sunni terrorists. Those items are straight-up military wish-list items, intended to bolster Iraq's conventional military capability against conventional enemies like foreign militaries.
I'm talking about how the issue is cast, how it's envisioned and discussed.
Reasonableness of searches is a subcategory of privacy.
Recasting this issue in terms of privacy, as opposed to the reasonableness of searches or the applicability of rules designed for telephone switch boards and paper envelopes, makes a lot of sense from a legal, constitution, and political perspective.
You ask "Why?"
"Why do they tolerate the impending constitution’s creation of a government ruled by the defense and interior ministries and the trashing of the judicial system through the preservation of military trials for civilians?"
I don't know. Why are groups that were opposing Mubarak in 2011 supporting the restoration of Mubarakism in 2013?
Is it the experience under Morsi? Did his term in office, ending with massive crowds in the street calling him "Pharaoh" and demanding his ouster, sour the Egyptian center-left on democracy, to the point of making Mubarakism look good in hindsight?
That would be a shame.
'The more Egypt’s “liberals” help this process, the greater will be the destruction of everything they claim to value.'
Are they helping this process? It seems that the labor/youth movements that began the anti-Mubarak protests, and the anti-Morsi protests, have themselves become targets of the Sisi regime.
Or are you referring to a different segment of the body politic when you say "liberals?"
If there was an internal debate within the Brotherhood about electoral politics vs. violent resistance, it has just been won by the bomb-builders.
Attributing what goes in specific times and places to "the human condition" is a way of washing the politics and facts out of the narrative.
And imposing a narrative about the United States in place of the politics of Egypt, likewise.
Since the Egyptian people very clearly did not agree with the notion of waiting for elections to sweep Morsi from power, it's not entirely clear how America doing so would gain us cache with the Egypian public.
I'm trying to imagine how this would work. The Egyptian people are in the streets in huge numbers demanding Morsi's ouster. The Morsi government is getting more and more violent. At this point, the US somehow intervenes - rhetorically? with threats of aid cutoffs? - to insist that Morsi remains in power. This resistance to the Egypian popular will, in defense of growing tyrant, is supposed to 1) be a substantive exercise in the promotion of democracy and 2) advance our position among the Egyptian public?
Except that the United States is using its influence to push the Egyptian military regime to hold the elections it has promised, and allow itself to be voted out of power - just as it did the last time an Egyptian military government seized power, in the aftermath of Mubarak's ouster.
The connection between the Sisi government's strategic short-sightedness is its handling of the Muslim Brotherhood, and American malignancy after World War Two, is not entirely obvious.
Why the need to threadjack everything into these generic, ritualized denunciations of the United States? There is a big, complex, busy world out there; why the need to divert every discussion of events back to the United States?
Ultimately, who you're doing when you deflect like this is American-centric, and self-centered. This determination to bull over other topics, to treat them merely as a launching point for generic tirades against the United States, is a way of elevated the United States, and your critique of it, above what is happening in Egypt.
The United States IS pressing the military regime to "get out of government." The American position is that the military regime needs to follow through with the elections to install a democratic government - again, as they did the first time they took over, following their ouster of Mubarak.
Pushing for democratic reform is always the right thing, but trying to draw an equivalency between Egypt and the Gulf monarchies you mention doesn't really make sense. There is a democratic opposition and even government system in place in Egypt. The parties are organized, and they just had elections last year. Operationally, it's just a matter of actually carrying out the functions of elections. In the Gulf monarchies, there really isn't a democratic system waiting in the wings, available to take over. The pursuit of democracy there is at a much earlier position. Supporting democracy is two very different programs in those two situations.
It's funny - you start off saying that we should be "pressing the Gulf states to democratize," and then insist that we should have a policy of "stay out of the way" in the Gulf states. So...which is it? Should we be pushing the Gulf monarchies to reform, or should be staying out of their business?
How can the Sisi government not see how its actions contribute to this downward spiral?
Bill,
JT doesn't know what you're saying, but he's quite certain you're wrong.
Sherm,
The tricky part is that both statements are true at the same time: a level playing increases the odds of a negotiated settlement while also increasing the odds of a protracted, bloody stalemate. Such a development would reduce the chances of the Assad regime crushing the rebellion, but it increases the chances of both the outcome that is better than that, and the outcome that is worse.
"There are no rules, and punctilious categorization and tsking from afar don’t mean squat...It’s armchair arrogance of the first order to pretend that there are “rules” or “norms” to govern conduct that our and everyone else’s "
Thank God we have a system of international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, that doesn't give in to this nihilistic fatalism.
"The actions of the guys in “the government” are indistinguishable (except for Narrative convenience) from those “Allahu Akhbar!” enthusiasts"
The numbers suggest otherwise. The HRW investigators on the ground, who put more stock in the evidence they gather than in comfortable "pox on both houses" narratives, certainly don't agree with you.
It's the most likely scenario to bring about a negotiated settlement, which would be the best way to reduce the longevity and carnage.
Firing mortar rounds into a location where troops are actively fighting, and not taking sufficient care (or use a weapon of sufficient accuracy) to minimize civilian casualties - that is, what the report accuses the rebels of doing - is wrong. It demonstrates insufficient effort to protect non-combatants while going after combatants.
The government's use of barrel bombs, on the other hand, looks like an effort to kill the fish by draining the pond. It's a deliberate massacre, with the civilians being actual targets.
You're talking to someone who lives in what used to be Marty Meehan's Congressional district, so...oh, yeah. We sure do.
I'm quite happy to discount the theory that the US has an interest in destabilizing Turkey.
Where does this idea that the United States wants a less-stable Middle East come from? The US government has spent the past century making regional stability its core foreign policy goal in the region. A stable Middle East means a steady supply of oil, the absence of hostile revolutionary regimes/movements, and the avoidance of damaging oil price spikes.
On top of that, Turkey is an important NATO ally, as well as a top-tier MENA-region ally.
According to this "destabilization theory," what is the United States supposed to gain from regional instability?
And tends to do so over time.
Erdogan came into office in 2003.
I think the United States does it right in putting a hard limit on the length of a Chief Executive/Commander in Chief's term.
I don't know very much about Turkish politics. Can Erdoganism - that is, the embedding of the Muslim religious right within electoral democracy, as opposed to it being hostile to electoral democracy - survive Erdogan, or is it too closely associated with him personally?
"those gotta-get-em-into-the-action-to-protect-the-procurement-program V-22s"
Those things have killed more marines than AQI.
You'll have to forgive me for not giving you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to silly conspiracy theories involving the Syrian opposition.
As for the American citizens extracted, I can only tell you that they are unconnected with the Lowell Planning Board.
I'd assume they're aid workers, probably involved in water projects.
No, JT, not really.
I think it's pretty clear that the Syrian rebels are behind this coup.
With the Senate Majority Leader against it, and the President against it, supporting this bill seems like an easy way for politicians to posture as "pro-Israel" without actually having to do anything that would undermine the President or the Iranian deal.
Which of the 13 Democrats "mean it," and which are so posturing, is an interesting question.
"I’ve heard arguments, well, but this way we can be assured and the Iranians will know that if negotiations fail even new and harsher sanctions will be put into place. Listen, I don’t think the Iranians have any doubt that Congress would be more than happy to pass more sanctions legislation. We can do that in a day, on a dime."
Seriously: least necessary message ever.
What else was there?
Iran. China. Central Asia. The Indian subcontinent. Pakistan.
I think you define American geopolitical interests too narrowly when you insist that everything comes down to Israel.
"Mullah Omar whose area of control was a tiny part of the country,":
In point of fact, the Taliban controlled about 90% of the country, with only a small part of the far north/northwest in Northern Alliance hands on 9/11.
The bases operated by Omar's funder and son-in-law, Osama bin Laden, were absolutely in the areas controlled by the Taliban government.
BTW, about those 'counter-productive drone strikes' - where, exactly, are all of those increased terrorist attacks that, I've been assured for years, are their inevitable result?
Sure, Bill, JT seems to be in broad agreement with you without realizing it, but on the other hand, he sure did nail you on "your loya jirga."
Seriously, Bill, what were you thinking? 😉
Our objective there was to aggravate the Sunni-Shia divide
I see this absurdity surprisingly often. Look at American regional policy over the decades: propping up Mubarak and the House of Saud, backing Saddam as a check on Iran, throwing Iraq out of Kuwait. American policy has always been about promoting stability in the region so the oil will keep flowing. Promoting Sunni-Shiite conflict would run directly contrary to that goal.
The Bush administration's close friends in the House of Saud certainly didn't want to see Shiite-Sunni conflict in the region.
'it’s not like the joint operations were actually militarily efficient, let alone “victorious” or “successful,”'
So...that Taliban wasn't toppled as the government of Afghanistan? Al Qaeda wasn't routed?
You have an odd definition of "victorious" and "successful."
No question, Bill, American air support and organizing on the ground was a necessary component to the Norther Alliance's victory.
My point was not to claim that US action played no role in the fall of the Taliban, but to point out that there were two different actions taken: toppling the Taliban/routing al Qaeda took place in 2001. The invasion of Afghanistan took place after that.
The connection between Israel and Afghanistan is...not obvious.
Our problem in Afghanistan was after we had rooted out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and after Karzai in Kabul and other warlords around the country began asserting power in their fiefdoms (much as had always been the case in Afghanistan), we attempted that fool’s errand called “nation-building”
I think you're leaving out something when you offer "nation building," discussed as some sort of altruistic mission, vs. counter-terrorism, as if dispensing with al Qaeda was the only national-interest-based action the Bush administration envisioned there. As the Iraq War, and the low priority they put on al Qaeda both before 9/11 and from 2002 forward, demonstrate, these people believed very strongly in Great Game geopolitics. They believed in toppling hostile governments, installing client regimes, and locating American military forces in those formerly-hostile countries in order to project American power.
Yes, they wanted to nation-build in Afghanistan, but as a means to the end of establishing a reliable client state to be "an ally in the War on Terror."
You're right about policy going forward, but it's important to understand what brought us to this position in the first place.
Umwut?
Iraq, located on the border between Iran and Saudi Arabia, was intended to the new basing country for the troops previously stationed in Saudi Arabia - that is, the main home for the major land forces the US keeps in the region. The Bush administration was quite open about its desire to remove the forces from the KSA, and to use Iraqi bases to "project power throughout the region."
You seem to be engaging in a common fallacy people fall into when looking at American actions in the Middle East: to observe what has happened, and then make up a narrative to explain why it was exactly what we intended all along.
The focus here is on the American invasion of Afghanistan, a decade-long effort involving tens of thousands of troops in the country.
It's worth going back over the timeline and remembering how and when that happened.
The Taliban was driven out of Kabul not by Americans but by the Northern Alliance. This took place on November 12, 2001. There were fewer than 1000 American troops in the entire country.
The battle of Tora Bora, which could have been and should have been the end of the action, took place from December 12-17 2001. The total number of western ground troops involved in the action was in the dozens.
The invasion of Afghanistan took place in 2002, after the Taliban had fallen, and after al Qaeda had been routed from their home bases and all but annihilated.
People talk, rightly, about the invasion of Iraq being an effort to achieve geo-political goals, with the connection to terrorism being merely an overlay for public consumption, but this point is made much less frequently about Afghanistan.
The Bush administration carried out a response to the 9/11 attacks, and then it carried out the invasion of Afghanistan.
"With military bases worldwide, why would anyone imagine that the US wouldn’t retain a base in Afghanistan?"
Because we didn't retain one in Iraq.
The US does have bases all over the world, but they tend to be in more stable countries that are solid allies. Afghanistan, like Iraq, is neither.
There was a time (Jan 2001-Jan 2009) that US foreign policy was being run by people who thought that having large American combat forces operating out of bases in war-torn countries like Iraq was a good idea, but those people have had a rough few years.
As opposed to Texas?
Heh.
They're in a great position to export green energy to England if they meet this goal. It's one export industry replacing another.
I had no idea that Arizona was so far behind on solar plants. Neighbors like Texas, California, and Nevada are going great guns on commercial solar. I wonder why Arizona is lagging.
Perhaps it's because Arizona has never been a major energy state, or a major environmentalist state, so green energy just doesn't have a already-powerful lobby to jump on board.
OK, "Bei Dawei," please tell us some more about the absence of racism experienced by a black kid in Barack Obama's position. Really, give us the benefit of your obviously broad experience.
I daresay, Bill, that the people eliding the issue of law enforcement procedures in this country - the ones who can't bring themselves to squarely discuss what happened here and use euphemisms like "following standard procedure" - are the ones missing the wider picture here.
But be that as it may, this sudden, passionate concern that so many on the right are expressing about exploitive working conditions and inadequate compensation is music to my liberal ears, and doubly so because of the honest, principled place from which it comes.
Very true...and yet, we know that this goes well beyond this particular mayor. It's not as if he was sticking his neck out in any way when he issued that mandate. Quite the opposite.
I'm not entirely clear what President Obama has to do with this case, or what his "tune" is.
BTW, President Obama is a black man who grew up in the United States, so it's probably a safe bet that he's quite familiar with the problem of police mistreatment of arrestees.
Not paying taxes ranks a bit lower than paying slave wages and exploiting low-income workers, at least on the left.
If the law enforcement officers had demonstrated a little more discretion, we might actually be talking about the exploitation of low-wage workers instead of arrest procedures - but we're not, and that's a shame.
Exactly, Professor.
It's more than a little embarrassing that our ordinary police procedures are so extreme that the Indians would assume that the diplomat had to have been singled out for egregious treatment.
It's like eating something in a restaurant, gagging on it, accusing the chef of trying to poison you, and then discovering that, no, that's the way the minestrone soup always tastes there.
Putin's little propaganda organ just rips off the messages of real leftist outlets, anyway, so why link to them instead of, say, Democracy Now?
Your point was quite clear. It was also wrong. The judge didn't pull punches or go easy on the NSA. The actions you cited as evidence don't actually demonstrate what you thought they did.
Interesting. It makes me wonder if he would have ruled the other way if there was a Republican in the White House.
Bill, the judge wasn't pulling punches by using the language “substantial likelihood of success." This was a hearing for a preliminary injunction, to enjoin the NSA's gathering program while the underlying case against it is being litigated. "A substantial likelihood of success" is the legal standard he was being asked to apply.
"Second, although Judge Leon granted the request for an injunction that blocks the collection of data for Klayman and a co-plaintiff, he stayed action on his ruling pending a US Government appeal."
That is a near-universal step in the granting of an injunction against an ongoing government action. There would have to be some truly extraordinary circumstances - like, somebody is liable to get killed - for the trial court judge not to do so. If he didn't, then the appellate court would almost certainly do it for him.
Leon pointed out that nowadays cell phone data includes much more than just the number you called. It also includes, for instance, your location when you made the call, functioning in the way GPS does. For the NSA perpetually to collect intrusive data without a warrant on millions of persons not suspected of wrongdoing is a very different proposition than the 1979 case.
This is a legitimate point, but a bad example to support it. In 1979, the land-line telephone number information also provided your location - the house/apartment/office that had that phone number.
Still, the point holds. Not only is there much more information being provided now, but computing technology allows the government to do a lot more with that information.
I'm afraid your gut is wrong, since the conversion of Egypt and Syria both took place prior to the actions of the Roman Empire to spread Christianity (in fact, they both went Christian while the religion was being persecuted by the Roman government), and before the Byzantine Empire even existed.
A fine, brave attempt to move the goal posts to the Land of Useful Generality, but the question was specifically how the Levant became Christian - a question that really has nothing to do with "Arab Christianity," since the area did not become Arabized until centuries later.
Al Qaeda doesn't belong alongside the other groups you mention. They are not an "identity" group. The command the support of no populations, but are in fact hunted and despised, and waging war on, the communities from which they came - very unlike the Tamils, or the Hutu militias.
Individual situations have individual facts, and they're worth understanding, instead of sweeping distinct and different events under a single grand theory.
I know your gut tells you that the answer is "Through conquest by Christian armies," but it just ain't so.
Through the conversion of the locals by the early church, both before and after it became the Roman Empire's state religion.
Syria and Egypt were the first two Christian countries.
But since the actions were, as you say, "common that era," then their usage wouldn't have been seen as barbaric.
Notably, the Muslim forces were not termed "barbarians," either. They were talked about as bad guys for sure, but in the same manner that a European enemy would have been described.
Except that al Qaeda in both Libya and Syria are constantly called terrorists in the western press, and neither are "ours."
Oh, ffs, prosecuting people who leak classified information is not "doing everything he can to crush dissent."
You don't do your cause any favors by indulging in hysterical language. It may make your partisans cheer louder, but it makes everyone who isn't already on the bus dismiss you.
"They see nothing wrong with Israel as a state with one social group at the top and another group brutally oppressed at the bottom."
I don't think this is true; it gives Americans too much credit for understanding events overseas, and too little for their basically democratic outlook.
I think American support for Israel is better explained as a failure to appreciate that the situation has changed in the past 50 years. Americans are still rooting for plucky little Israel, surrounded on all sides by hostile, more-powerful Arab neighbors, and they see the treatment of the Palestinians as a wartime measure used to keep the country safe against terrorists.
None of which is particularly accurate in 2013 (or 2003 or even 1993), but that's the narrative that Americans grew up on.
Is your right to vote cosmetic? Your freedom of speech? Of protest? Your freedom to join a political party?
Setting aside the real material gains you sweep away, such as the large reduction in poverty: are political and civil rights so meaningless, so cosmetic?
This isn't 1956, and the statement " It most assuredly is not manifestly in the domestic political interest of an American President to insist that the US and Israel are on the same page," would be laughed at by any politician capable of being elected to the state legislature.
Sheesh, all the undeniable evidence of the power of the Israel lobby and voters staring us in the face, and Bill somehow comes to the conclusion that there are no political consequences for a President to be seen as anti-Israel! How is that even possible?
"There is no “nuclear deal” as yet. There is simply an interim agreement to later tackle the real issue of Iran’s nuclear program."
Thank you, Dr. Semantics. What, exactly, does this have to with the issue of Obama's alleged habit of hewing to Israel's line? Did Israel support "an interim agreement to later tackle the real issue of Iran’s nuclear program?" Does Netanyahu appear to consider it meaningless, or consistent with his own policy preferences?
"Your uncritical admiration for Obama is evident in your posts, Joe, but you appear to overlook what a weak and indecisive President he is."
People who dive right into the psychobabble generally do so because they can't answer the substance. I can't help but notice that, in your entire piece, you fail to address the actual point: whether Obama's actions are, or are not, consistent with the desires of the Israeli government.
But you know what's really funny? You started off trying to argue that Obama's rhetoric - not actions, but rhetoric - about the Iranian nuclear deal and Israel give us a solid indication of where he stands, but by the end, you're arguing that his rhetoric is meaningless.
So which is it?
It says that they're constrained by political forces - something that internet commenters don't have to take into account, but officerholders do.
Tell me, Bill Bodden, was Ted Cruz's government shutdown strategy a demonstration of moral courage, because he didn't pay any attention to any outside political considerations, or was it stupidity that led to failure?
I think you're a little confused about what "breakout capacity" means. It doesn't mean you're building a bomb, but developing the ability to build one later if you change your mind.
But is Netanyahu - not Israel in general, but him in particular - a rational actor?
His behavior, especially towards President Obama, in recent years suggests he is not.
It is manifestly in the domestic political interest of both an Israeli Prime Minister and an American President to insist that the countries are on the same page, even when they are not. American Presidents have to worry about the pro-Israel lobby and voters, while Israeli leaders have to worry about appearing to screw up the country's relationship with the global superpower that backs it.
The Iranian nuclear deal itself, and the stiff-arms Netanyahu has received on his policy efforts, would seem to suggest that the administration is not quite the "true believers" you wish to portray them as.
When evaluating politicians, it's wiser to pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
"Our best efforts to reach Palestinian-Israeli peace will come to nothing if Iran succeeds in building atomic bombs."
Looking at this strictly as a geo-political contest: if Netanyahu wants to use the peace talks as a hostage, he'd better provide some signs that the hostage is alive. What are those of us who support an I-P peace deal supposed to worry about losing?
If there was a promising, ongoing peace process going on that an Iranian nuclear program might undermine, talking about threats to that process might carry some weight, but based on Netanyahu's behavior over the past few years, why would anyone sacrifice any other foreign policy goal for what looks like such an illusory hope?
As a player on the world stage, Netanyahu is as incompetent as he is vicious.
American Anwar al-Awlaki organizing a plot to have a Nigerian carry a bomb onto an American plane and blow it up over Detroit is part of an internal Yemeni conflict.
I know, because Vladimir Putin's media organ told me so.
I must have missed the part where Eisenhower raised taxes on the rich.
The Democratic Party oligarchs were most likely hostile to Mandela for his socialist and rebel credentials
In point of fact, the Democratic Party sponsored the bills imposing sanctions against South Africa, as well as the resolution calling for Mandela's release.
Obamacare includes a massive expansion of a federal entitlement program, Medicaid.
Can you name any federal entitlement programs expanded by alleged New Dealer Dwight Eisenhower?
The question should be: Where is the Israeli de Klerk?
Dead by an assassin's bullet.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Note "Jewish community," not "State of Israel."
Best back-handed compliment ever.
on economic issues he is an Eisenhower Republican and Mandela wouldn’t approve
I don't know, Professor. The Nelson Mandela who went into prison wouldn't have approved. The Nelson Mandela who actually governed as the South African head of state was a fairly moderate figure.
Reading all of these comments from people who couldn't be bothered to click the first link is funny.
Yep, the US sure is exceptional. Truly the most corrupt country in the world. lol
No, Bill, the mistake is yours. You just failed your reading test.
"The 158th most corrupt country in the world" and "19th" are the same thing.
Those ratings that castigate Afghanistan and some other poor countries as hopelessly “corrupt” always imply that the United States is not corrupt.
Um, no.
link to transparency.org
Transparency international lists the United States as the 158th most corrupt country in the world. Out of 177.
I have to question his third proposal. It seems to me that the National Transitional Council already did an excellent job expressing a vision for the country's future.
If only Gadhaffi had turned Benghazi into the next Sbrenca, everything would be ok.
Professor, could we get a better translation of this passage?
we will not be deceived by the tricks of the regime which promotes to the West as this regime deceives Egyptians same as deceiving the international community under the allegations of the war of terrorism & in fact is fighting for establishing the country of repression and Tyranny.
I can't make heads or tails of that.
Do you see how you moved the goal posts? Whereas you initially claimed that including such a condition was unremarkable and not a "poison pill" that would scrap the deal, you're now arguing instead that such a condition is a good idea (from the point of view of the American troops).
And, no question, from the point of view of American military personnel, being immune from local law is, indeed, a very good thing.
But that wasn't the question. The question was whether the inclusion of that demand is a heavy lift, a condition that is unacceptable to the Afghans, and is likely to scrap a SOFA and result in the withdrawal of the troops, and that is a question that is answered not by considering the opinion of the American personnel who might or might not be stationed there, but that of the Afghan public and political leadership.
Well, Brian, our army could maintain an occupation the way virtually all occupations have been maintained throughout history: without getting the locals' endorsement of any sort of Status of Forces Agreement. It's true that there cannot be an occupation without the troops being immune from local law. It's also true that the United States doesn't need to have the Afghan government's permission to set up shop in the country, as the example of the Taliban demonstrates.
So, we find the United States asking permission to keep troops in the country, while also insisting that the Afghans sign off on that presence and that immunity, and "threatening" not to remain the country at all if they don't sign off.
And we know that exactly this path was taken before, in Iraq; we know how it ended up; and we know that the Obama administration is pursuing the same path in Afghanistan.