Saddam’s execution and the tragedy of Iraq

A couple of weeks ago the U.S. Institute of Peace organized this panel discussion, at which I got to present the main points in my latest book, which is about “transitional justice” issues in three African countries. (It was an excellent discussion. You can download an audio feed of it there.)
Most of the argument I made was a plea that the international community leave room for amnesties and other approaches to social healing as part of negotiations that successfully bring an end to atrocity-laden conflicts.
Toward the end of the session, Neil Kritz, a longtime USIP staffer who’s a lawyer and a big groundbreaker in the transitional justice field, threw me a friendly challenge, “Well, what about Saddam? He is so evidently a monster. What would you do about him?”
I didn’t really have time to answer Neil properly. Saddam is a “hard case” for an anti-death penalty person like me to think about. (Okay, I am also, in general, a fairly strongly critic of the entire theory of “punishment” as it has been conceived in western thought, and practised in western societies. I am much more in favor of restorative approaches to social healing as a way to increase justice, rather than retributive theories of enacting a formalized, highly legalistic form of “justice” against– as happens disproportionately– members of social groups that anyway start off as socially and politically marginalized.)
So what about Saddam?
I disagree with Neil, first, that the man is a “monster”. He is responsible for having carried out many monstrous acts, certainly. But that is significantly different. His having committed those acts doesn’t remove him from the class of human beings and put him in some sub-human category, like “monsters”, that can be dealt with in unhuman ways.
In northern Uganda, Joseph Kony has also– by all accounts– committed many acts of, if possible, even greater “monstrosity” than Saddam’s acts. Kony and his followers are credibly accused of having engaged not “just” in broad-scale murder, mutilation, and enslavement but also in sexual enslavement of thousands of girls, the impressment of thousands of child soldiers, and even cannibalism.
And yet, the vast majority of the Acholi people who have been the main targets of these acts have continued to urge that great efforts be made to reintegrate Kony into Acholi society.
Now, I know that the Acholi people have a very different culture from the Iraqi people; and I understand that in Iraq there are broad swathes of — in particular– Shiites and Kurds who have expressed great eagerness for Saddam to be executed. But I mentioned Kony and the attitudes of the Acholi towards him to show that there– and in many other places around the world, indeed– there is no automatic assumption, such as most westerners seem to hold to, that the victims/survivors of acts of monstrosity “always” want to see strong retribution/punishment enacted against their former persecutors, and that to “honor” these victims we who are outsiders to the issue should always support those calls for retribution.
Actually, I feel rather strongly that to do that merely infantilizes the victims.
There are many other cultures around the world, indeed– and also, I am sure, some smaller groups within Iraq’s Kurdish and Shiite communities– where survivors of acts of atrocity are not completely pandered to in this way, but are urged to play their own responsible part in helping build a future society of inter-group cooperation and tolerance, and the strengthening of the rule of law.
“An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind.” That’s what Mahatma Gandhi said– and quite rightly so.
Regarding Saddam as such, I feel myself as a US citizen to be both an “outsider” regarding consideration of his case, and also– by virtue of my citizenship in a nation that has played such a huge role in bringing him to his present death sentence– indirectly a party to it.
I protest, loathe, and seek in every way to dissociate myself from the role my government has played in orchestrating this deeply flawed “trial” for Saddam Hussein.
As I wrote here, earlier today, there was at least one other, better path the US authorities in Iraq could have taken with respect to Saddam, once he had been captured alive. Instead of which, his case turned into into a highly divisive public spectacle within an Iraq that cried out for social healing, rather than for the further exacerbation of grave inter-group tensions.
I can understand– I think– why people from a number of social groups inside Iraq, and from Iran and Kuwait, may welcome the news of his execution, which will probably come very soon now. He did take some terribly aggressive decisions which rained death, destruction, and the lengthy privations of war down on millions of Iranians and Iraqis (and on the few thousands of courageous Kuwaitis who did not flee their princedom when his forces first invaded it in 1990.)
The worst acts Saddam committed were to gratuitously launch those two invasions of his neighbors– Iran in 1980, and Kuwait a decade later. For those wars not only led directly to death and destruction on the front-lines; beyond that, each of them also created a broader climate of fear and intense mistrust within which the Iraqi “security” forces committed horrendous atrocities against the country’s own people… Against Kurds and some Shiites in the 1980s. And then in 1991, horrendously, once again against large numbers of people from both those groups.
But honestly, without Iraq being in a climate of war at those times, I am sure that Saddam and the toadies from his mukhabarat would not have felt such a strong impetus to commit those atrocities. The root monstrosity was the monstrosity of starting those wars.
And then, there is President Bush, and his decision to gratuitously launch a war against Iraq in 2003; and all the later monstrosities that have occurred within an Iraq traumatized by that conflict and the lengthy and often grossly oppressive occupation that followed. Do we call Bush a “monster” because of the responsibility he must bear for a large proportion of this suffering? I don’t. Even though several things that have happened on his watch– in Abu Ghraib, in Guantanamo, and elsewhere round the world– have truly been acts of great monstrosity, for which he has never even started to make amends.
Saddam Hussein was a useful ally for the United States back in the 1980s. Let’s not forget that. And that alliance was sustained even though D. Rumsfeld and the other relevant people in the Reagan administration already knew full well that he was a man of great brutality.
I am sorry he is going to be killed. I am sorry whenever any of God’s children are intentionally killed by other humans. Any such killing– whether it’s carried out under the cover of a “judicial” process or not– makes the world a coarser and more brutal place.
In addition, it perpetuates the myth that if we can just kill enough of our enemies, then all our problems will be solved. No. Killing people whose acts we hate will never solve our problems. Finding ways to prevent them from carrying out such acts is the only thing that will; and there are many, many ways of achieving that. Very lengthy prison sentences is one way. Persuading these people to stop stop committing such acts and joining with us in building a better social order is even better…
Tonight I think I’m going to say a prayer for broad inter-group social healing among Iraqis. The last thing they need is yet more exacerbation of their inter-group tensions, such as this vindictive decision to execute Saddam Hussein threatens to bring. Let’s hope that enough Iraqis are cognizant enough of the risks of further social breakdown that they can find ways to avoid it.

Riverbend looks at 2006, Saddam’s imminent execution

After a disturbingly long absence from the blogosphere, here she is again. Still with the wisdom of someone of far beyond her years.
Including this:

    2006 has been, decidedly, the worst year yet. No- really. The magnitude of this war and occupation is only now hitting the country full force. It’s like having a big piece of hard, dry earth you are determined to break apart. You drive in the first stake in the form of an infrastructure damaged with missiles and the newest in arms technology, the first cracks begin to form. Several smaller stakes come in the form of politicians like Chalabi, Al Hakim, Talbani, Pachachi, Allawi and Maliki. The cracks slowly begin to multiply and stretch across the once solid piece of earth, reaching out towards its edges like so many skeletal hands. And you apply pressure. You surround it from all sides and push and pull. Slowly, but surely, it begins coming apart- a chip here, a chunk there.
    That is Iraq right now. The Americans have done a fine job of working to break it apart. This last year has nearly everyone convinced that that was the plan right from the start. There were too many blunders for them to actually have been, simply, blunders. The ‘mistakes’ were too catastrophic….

And this:

    I can’t help but ask myself why this was all done? What was the point of breaking Iraq so that it was beyond repair? Iran seems to be the only gainer. Their presence in Iraq is so well-established, publicly criticizing a cleric or ayatollah verges on suicide. Has the situation gone so beyond America that it is now irretrievable? Or was this a part of the plan all along? My head aches just posing the questions.
    What has me most puzzled right now is: why add fuel to the fire? Sunnis and moderate Shia are being chased out of the larger cities in the south and the capital. Baghdad is being torn apart with Shia leaving Sunni areas and Sunnis leaving Shia areas- some under threat and some in fear of attacks. People are being openly shot at check points or in drive by killings… Many colleges have stopped classes. Thousands of Iraqis no longer send their children to school- it’s just not safe.
    Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam’s execution now? Who gains if they hang Saddam? Iran, naturally, but who else? There is a real fear that this execution will be the final blow that will shatter Iraq. Some Sunni and Shia tribes have threatened to arm their members against the Americans if Saddam is executed. Iraqis in general are watching closely to see what happens next, and quietly preparing for the worst.
    This is because now, Saddam no longer represents himself or his regime. Through the constant insistence of American war propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs (never mind most of his government were Shia). The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically, with this execution, what the Americans are saying is “Look- Sunni Arabs- this is your man, we all know this. We’re hanging him- he symbolizes you.” And make no mistake about it, this trial and verdict and execution are 100% American. Some of the actors were Iraqi enough, but the production, direction and montage was pure Hollywood (though low-budget, if you ask me).

And this:

    My only conclusion is that the Americans want to withdraw from Iraq, but would like to leave behind a full-fledged civil war because it wouldn’t look good if they withdraw and things actually begin to improve, would it?
    Here we come to the end of 2006 and I am sad. Not simply sad for the state of the country, but for the state of our humanity, as Iraqis. We’ve all lost some of the compassion and civility that I felt made us special four years ago. I take myself as an example. Nearly four years ago, I cringed every time I heard about the death of an American soldier. They were occupiers, but they were humans also and the knowledge that they were being killed in my country gave me sleepless nights. Never mind they crossed oceans to attack the country, I actually felt for them.
    Had I not chronicled those feelings of agitation in this very blog, I wouldn’t believe them now. Today, they simply represent numbers. 3000 Americans dead over nearly four years? Really? That’s the number of dead Iraqis in less than a month. The Americans had families? Too bad. So do we. So do the corpses in the streets and the ones waiting for identification in the morgue.
    Is the American soldier that died today in Anbar more important than a cousin I have who was shot last month on the night of his engagement to a woman he’s wanted to marry for the last six years? I don’t think so.

    Just because Americans die in smaller numbers, it doesn’t make them more significant, does it?

No, dear Riverbend, it doesn’t. And though I feel great empathy for the families of all US service members who have been killed in this grotesque and terrible war, it still remains the case that all those soldiers and Marines volunteered to put their lives on the line, when they joined the military services.
From that perspective, the death of each civilian is of a morally graver order than the death of a vounteer soldier.

Annotated Lieberman


Why We Need More Troops in Iraq

By Joseph Lieberman
WaPo, Friday, December 29, 2006

Text HC notes
A.

I’ve just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking
to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever:
While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On
one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the
other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is
the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we
end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war
against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

 Holy Joe is now playing a big role in helping to
propagate the terms of the new, quite content-free, “moderates versus extremists”
discourse being used by the Bush administration with reference to the Middle
East and other areas like the Horn of Africa.

Where administration people used to speak about the main battle-lines
being drawn between (good) “democrats”and (bad) “terrorists”, it’s become evident– even to them– that those lines and categories have become blurred and are no longer as useful as they were.  Um, some
of the people most invested in the “democratic” process turned out to be
Hamas and Hizbullah? And many of the US’s staunchest allies in the Middle
East are strongly anti-democratic; and they’ve even on occasion engaged
in acts of violence that looked strangely, um, terroristic? Finally, the
administration people started to notice facts like these!  Hence, the
segue to the more content-free terms of “moderates”  and “extremists.”

You can see Holy Joe easing the transition between these two discourses
here by conjoining the terms used on each side of this fence.

Suggestion from very good friend who’s also a M.E. specialist: “Couldn’t
we just stick to ‘white hats’ and ‘black hats’?”

B.

Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel
and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad,
(1) the war is winnable.(2) We and our Iraqi allies
must do what is necessary to win it.

 (1) What on earth is he talking about here?  Did
he draft this article before he understood that the  political maneuver
of forming a new, anti-Moqtada political coalition had failed?

(2) Nonsense.  Nonsense on stilts.  Extremely dangerous nonsense.

C.

The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress,
and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy.
But what is needed now, especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair
but decisive action — and soon.

The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi
political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing
and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and
death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq’s nascent democratic institutions cannot
be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear
created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue
to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in
peace and reconciliation.
D.

This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient
hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic
security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and
Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq’s fragile political
center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past
three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal
violence that threatens to consume the country.(2)

 (1) Here, what he intentionally conjoins
are al-Qaeda and Iran, both of which are subsumed into his general category
of “Islamic extremism”.  Doing this, (a) intentionally excludes the
importance of the indigenous Iraqis who make up the vast bulk of the Sunni
resistance forces; (b) paints all Sunni resisters as simply part of the worldwide
network of “al-Qaeda”; and (c) implies that there is some fiendish confluence
of interest between Iran and al-Qaeda.  All of these are serious analytical
mistakes that obstruct Joe’s ability to understand what’s going on in Iraq
and help lead to his very misleading policy prescriptions.

(2) True. But note point 1a above.

E.

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale
civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and
Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war
against Islamic extremism.

 Iraq is a vital locus for a much broader regional
contest, certainly.  But this contest is not simply– as Joe implies– a
two-sided power struggle between “our” side (a.k.a., the “moderates”) and
“Islamic extremism”.  It’s a much more complex and nuanced struggle
for regional influence involving a larger and ever-shifting caste of characters.
 Inside Iraq right now the main actors are, on the one hand, the US and its allies, and on the other, Iran and its allies (who are not all Shiites, and do not include all the Shiites.)  Other significant actors in this power contest include: a range of Sunni groups spanning a broad and probably still fairly fluid spectrum from secular nationalists of a more Arabist or more Iraqist orientation, through indigenous-Iraqi Islamists, through a small number of foreign Islamists; the well-armed Kurdish parties; tribal networks, some of which cross national boundaries and even sectarian fault-lines; Israel (which should not be thought of as acting always with the same
motivations as Washington); Turkey; various Saudi interests; and several other smaller powers and interests.

Joe misses all this nuance and simply lumps all the “Islamic” actors together.  And he argues
on the basis of the assumption that there is no possibility for “the west”
to reach any form of accomodation with Iran over Iraq.  But the US
has been able to maintain a sustained accomodation with Iran in Afghanistan,
so why not in Iraq?  Why the strong desire to sustain this– actually,
deeply unsustainable– posture of “global and regional war” against Iran
there?

F.

To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while
we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces
in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders
and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must
be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province — an increase that will at
last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical
central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat
al-Qaeda in that province.

 At the present stage of the breakdown of the pro-US
order in Iraq, I judge that even doubling the number of US troops there
could not achieve the tasks he delineates, and I don’t know of anyone whose
opinion on strategic matters I admire who reaches any different conclusion.

I know Holy Joe is a man of strong “beliefs”, but let’s have a facts-based
not a beliefs-based approach to this question?

G.

In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels,
even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places
these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the
extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our
military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, “Sir, I regret
that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to
know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in
why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can
win it.”

 This is an interesting vignette, actually, since
it strongly implies that this colonel had been sitting in a meeting in
which his military superiors had been painting a far less than rosy picture
of the military situation to their senatorial visitor.

And then, this question of the pro-surge lower ranks who stand in contrast
to the largely surge-reluctant top brass?  Well, it depends who you
talk to, doesn’t it?  AP’s Will Weissert
wrote
from Baghdad yesterday that “Many of the American soldiers trying to
quell sectarian killings in Baghdad … say the temporary surge in troop
levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.”  Basing his report
on “dozens of interviews” with infantry soldiers as they patrolled the
streets of eastern Baghdad, he found that,

many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare
between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American
troops can stop.

Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said
any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not
combat.

But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave
of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned
whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting
more lives on the line.

These guys seem very realistic to me.  I wonder how much
recent patrolling experience Joe’s colonel there had had?

H.

In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient
troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should
be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.

More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight,
but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage
in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there
will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political
front — possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear
gripping all sides.

I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic,
moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi
Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian
violence.(1) We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots
(2) who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.

 (1) See B (1) above.  Yes, I guess he did
draft it before Sistani and Hakim
threw a monkey-wrench
into the isolate-Moqtada plot. Also, note the highly inaccurate use of the “moderates vs. extremists” discourse in this sentence. Is there any evidence at all that the coalition the US was trying to assemble ten days ago against Moqtada was more “moderate” or “multi-ethnic” than the anti-occupation alliance he has been trying to assemble? No. But the pro-US forces have to be called “the moderates” and the anti-US forces “the extremists”. That is the only real content of these terms in the official US parlance.

(2) This concern expressed for the wellbeing of the puppet forces is exactly
analogous to that expressed in pre-2000 Israel for the wellbeing of the
puppet SLA people.

I.

The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive
new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for
the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a
democratic government can move forward.

In particular we must provide the vital breathing space for moderate
Shiites and Sunnis to turn back the radicals in their communities. There
are Iraqi political leaders who understand their responsibility to do this.
(1) In Anbar province we have made encouraging progress in winning
over local Sunni tribal leaders in the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists.
With more troops to support them, our forces in Anbar and their Sunni allies
can achieve a major victory over al-Qaeda.(2)

 (1) See B (1) above.

(2)  Again, the Sunni insurgents in Anbar are described as mainly
“al-Qaeda terrorists”, though with the one small, vague reference to “other”
terrorists, as well.  By ignoring the deeply Iraqi roots of
the anti-occupation forces in Anbar (and elsewhere), Joe seriously mis-states
the situation.

Also, where is that “enocouraging progress” in Anbar?  Show us, Joe!

J.

As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria(1)
appreciate — at times, it seems, more keenly than we do — failure in Iraq
would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and
its allies.(2) Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and
Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq
became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers
and Iran’s terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened
against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told
me(3) that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory
for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens
of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic
future would face the killing fields.(4)

 (1) On what basis does he describe the regime
in Syria as “hostile”?  The U.S. is not in a state of war with Syria.
 Syria maintains a full embassy in DC, and the Syrian president repeatedly
requests the US to resume the role it played in the 1990s in brokering a peace
agreement with Israel. The Syrian regime has given non-trivial  support
to the US military campaign in Iraq and has cooperated in the broad campaign
against jihadist terror groups– including by torturing suspects rendered
to it by the US.

Describing Syria as “hostile” is technically quite untrue– but it helps
to fan the flames of  US hatred and belligerency against it.  Not
coincidentally,  a sizeable group of US neocons is still agitating for
a US campaign of “regime change” in Syria.

(2) The US has already failed in Iraq, though Holy Joe is unwilling to acknowledge
this.  This failure can still, however, be handled in a number of different
ways: through serious, good-faith international negotiations that can minimize
the damage suffered by the US and all other parties; or by delaying such negotiations,
and thus making some kind of “catastrophe” all the more likely.  The
course he advocates is of the latteer type.

(3) Unsubstantiated hearsay.  I wonder which “moderate Palestinian
leader” this was and why such a character is dragged into the argument at
this point?  Could it possibly be that Joe hopes that attributing this
warning to a “moderate Palestinian” gives it more credibility than attributing
it to one of the many friends and relatives Joe Lieberman has in Israel?

 Come to think of it, it’s altogether very weird that this particular
senator, writing about the Middle East, doesn’t even mention Israel and its
interests even once.  This seems like a rather clear case of “the dog
that didn’t bark.”  Are you trying to hide something here, Joe?

(4) See H (2) above.

K.

In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically
and morally right for our nation(1) over the long term — not what appears
easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are
heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral
alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis(2)
until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather
than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must
summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and
decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq.(3) That
will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the
Middle East(4) and protect our security at home.

 (1) In general, I agree.  However, the content
of  “what is right… for our nation” should certainly be open to discussion.
 I am strongly convinced that ending the occupation and entering into
a new, more productive, respectful, and egalitarian relationship with all
the rest of the nations of the world is to do “what is right for our nation”– as well as for the rest of the world.  I judge, too, that if we follow the
escalatory course Joe advocates it will be disastrous for us and for everyone
else involved.   So let’s have a little less of the certitude-based
sermonizing here, and a bit more real analysis and reflection on, actually,
what kind of a place do we want the US to occupy in the world.

(2) Ah, those “moderates” again….

(3)  Okay, so the senator is asking Americans to make a large-scale commitment
to this escalation in Iraq.  What is he, personally, prepared to contribute
to this?  Does he encrouage all his younger family members to enlist
in the armed forces?  Does he forthrightly tell his constituents
that we will have to seriously raise taxes and cut government funding for
social programs in order to sustain the military escalation he seeks?  If
I see him do these things, then I will have more respect for the sincerity
of his views.  Haven’t seen it yet.

(4) “Moderation” (again)… and this time allied to the kind of  “freedom”
that’s exported on the tip of a cruise missile.

Bush brings forth a mouse

The Prez, having beaten away the hands that Baker, Hamilton, and and Co. extended to him from their lifeboat, then determined that he would find his own way to swim to safety through the increasingly perilous seas of his Iraq policy.
He “conferred”. He “deliberated”. He tried– without much success– to look “presidential” and “in control” in several tightly controlled public appearances. He wrestled “mightily” with the issues…
And he brought forth–
This pathetic, mewling little mouse of a suggestion:

    As he puts the finishing touches on his revised Iraq plan, President Bush is considering new economic initiatives to go along with a possible increase in troops to help stabilize the country, according to officials familiar with the administration’s review.
    Among the steps being considered are short-term jobs and loan programs aimed at winning back the waning local support for the U.S. presence in Iraq…

That, from the WaPo’s Robin Wright and Michael Abramowitz, in Crawford with the Prez. (Where also, Cindy Sheehan just got arrested for sitting down on a public road.)
There are still, apparently, some murmurings of criticism– or at least, concern– from the top military people about the efficacy of sending in the “surge” (or let’s more realistically say, “cosmetic surge-ette”) of additional troops that the Prez still for some reason seems wedded to.
Wright and Abramowitz write:

    One idea gaining currency in the administration is to send between 15,000 and 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, at least on a temporary basis, to help improve security, but there are questions among senior military leaders about how effective this move would be.
    The Pentagon has pressed for political and economic plans to complement such a possible surge in troops.

And the president has responded! Namely, he’s coming close to endorsing some totally ridiculous– and by no means new– political and economic “initiatives”.

    The political component of the emerging Bush package would set up benchmarks for long-overdue steps, such as amending the constitution to help address the objections of Iraq’s Sunni minority and dismantling 23 predominantly Shiite militias…
    Some U.S. officials think an economic package may be the most promising element of a revised strategy… The economic package now on the table focuses on three elements, and is separate from the long-term jobs-creation program being promoted by the U.S. military… One element, traditionally linked to a counterinsurgency strategy, is to follow up any military sweep with a short-term work program that would immediately hire people in the neighborhood to clear up trash or do other small civil-affairs jobs.
    This project would begin within hours rather than days of a military operation and would help signal a return to normalcy. It might also help wean young unemployed Iraqi men from the militias or prevent them from joining any of the armed factions that are fueling Iraq’s escalating sectarian strife.
    The second part would be a micro-loan program…
    The third part of the package, which has been developed in part by the Treasury Department, would review dormant state-owned industries to try and determine which ones are economically viable and worth reopening….

Does anybody in Bubble-boy’s personal “Green Zone” in Crawford dare tell him how insultingly penny-ante and stupid all these proposals are? Does anyone there dare tell him how truly terrible the living situation now is in Iraq?
All these economic proposals may, just possibly, have made some sense if they’d been implemented, say, back in May and June of 2003. (Instead of which, that was the time when Bremer came in and dismantled the army and the state industries, throwing millions of Iraqi breadwinners into the streets.) Back then, I remember several earnest discussions in which Americans debated whether “economic” or “politics” or “security” issues should take precedence in Iraq. But the Bush people paid serious attention to none of these spheres.
Then– as now– it is politics that needs to be looked at, as the highest priority. And in particular, the politics of national reconciliation within Iraq, allied to the politics of finding a way to negotiate a speedy and total US withdrawal.
Based on those essential elements, the Iraqis themselves can doubtless, sooner or later, figure out a way to deal with issues of public security, and with reviving a national economy wrecked by 12 years of US-UK-patrolled sanctions and nearly four years of US-UK direct misrule. The Bushites’ proposal that– after every military operation they launch against Iraqi neighborhoods– they wade in “within hours” with their dollar bills and pay Iraqi young men to sweep up the carnage from the streets… and that that will help “win” their hearts and minds??? … All that is insulting nonsense.
Almost unbelievable.
Oh wait. It’s the Bush presidential team we’re talking about here. Not unbelievable, at all.

Saddam death sentence further muddying “rule of law” in Iraq

Saddam Hussein may be executed by hanging any day now. AP’s Lauren Frayer reported a short time ago that the US military guards holding him allowed his half-brothers to visit him in his cell, and he gave them his will and his personal belongings, indicating the hanging may be very near. But she also quoted “Iraqi” officials as saying Saddam is still in US custody and had not yet been handed over to the “Iraqi” authorities for hanging.
(Reuters has reported out of Dubai that he’d already been handed over to the Iraqi authorities. But that report was indirect and poorly sourced.)
The special court established to try Saddam and other leaders of the former regime on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes was nominally “Iraqi”, though at every point in its operation from its founding in 2004 until today its “Iraqi” personnel have had the close advice and generally loose supervision of US advisers from the “Regime Crimes Liaison Office.”
Additionally, the “Iraqi” courtroom has been within an area, reportedly in the Green Zone, that is completely controlled by the US military. And though the “trials” themselves have been held in this “Iraqi” courtroom, in between the sessions Saddam has still been held in the custody of the US Army, like the prisoner-of-war that, under international law, he in fact is.
When he is executed, his US guards will have to hand him over to the “Iraqi” security forces who will supervise his homicide through hanging.
Yesterday, his lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi raised a strong objection to this handover. According to AP’s Christopher Torchia, Dulaimi,

    implored world leaders [today] to prevent the United States from handing over the ousted leader to Iraqi authorities for execution, saying he should enjoy protection from his enemies as a “prisoner of war.”

Dulaimi’s objection was explicitly very political, based as it was on a judgment that the “Iraqi” special court is made up Saddam’s “enemies”. Yes, that is probably a correct judgment. However, even on strictly technical, procedural grounds there is strong case to be made against this handover. Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention states:

    In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

Art. 105 states that in the event of a judicial proceeding being brought against a POW, he is entitled to “defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, [and] to the calling of witnesses”, and further defines the rights of this counsel to conduct an effective defense.
The now very current issue over the the (national) identity of the organization holding Saddam’s person raises important questions over the broader jurisdictional issues involved. One can make a very strong argument that the establishment of that completely new body, the “Iraqi High Tribunal”, like all the many other far-reaching administrative changes that the US occupiers have made during their lengthy stay in Iraq, was quite illegal under international law, which prohibits occupying powers from enacting such changes.
But right now, the fact that Saddam remains in the physical custody of the US forces places those forces in front of a particular dilemma. Will the US now hand him over to the Iraqis to be executed as a result of a trial process that, a large number even of Americans who earlier eagerly supported the whole trial process now agree, has been very deeply flawed?
It clearly looks as though the answer is “Yes.”
For examples of criticisms by US-based organizations and individuals of the Iraqi court’s proceedings and its death sentence, see the statements issued most recently by Human Rights Watch and the International Center for Transitional Justice.
See, too, the comments contributed to this on-line forum by respected law profs Mark Drumbl and Bill Schabas.
This, from HRW’s Rickard Dicker:

    “Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. “That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq’s national security advisor underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein’s trial.”

This, from the ICTJ:

    The Appeals Chamber of the Iraqi High Tribunal has mistakenly chosen speed over justice, said the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). Instead of addressing the serious flaws of the Dujail trial, the Chamber yesterday appeared to have bowed to political pressure and issued its final judgment with worrying speed.

This from Bill Schabas:

    Where defence lawyers live in fear of their lives – a concern proven to be reasonable, given the tragic outcome for three of their colleagues – it cannot be said that the defendant has had a full and fair defence, and that the right to counsel of one’s choice could be exercised…
    International human rights law is crystal clear on one point. You cannot execute a person unless he or she has received a fair trial that respects the highest international standards. A reasonably fair trial is not good enough…

You can find my still-growing “Delicious” list of links to good resources on the Saddam trial here.
My basic bottom line: Has this whole trial proceeding, on balance, contributed to the building of a more stable and rule-of-law-observing society inside Iraq?
Answer: No.
What else might the US have done with Saddam once they’d captured him? Held him themselves, and explicitly as a high-ranking prisoner-of-war… And then, at the end of hostilities in Iraq the US itself could have tried him for the atrocities he committed. (Certainly, for the crime of genocide, under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction attached to it, any competent court anywhere could have tried him.)
Such a trial would still have had the potential of being divisive inside Iraq. But (1) It would not have been conducted at a time when major issues of governance remain unresolved and highly contested within Iraq, and (2) The proceedings and the resulting decision would have been an explicitly, and justifiably, US responsibility, and would not have dragged Iraq’s own internal political process into further depths of polarization, as having the present, nominally “Iraqi” special court handle the proceedings has done.
I have thought several times that it might have been better all round if Saddam had lost his life during the process of his capture. (Though being a Quaker I could not easily voice these thoughts.)
But the US search squads looking for him were apparently under strong instructions to try to take him alive if at all possible, so that widely publicized trials that would help, ex-post-facto, to “justify” the whole decision to topple him by force could be held… And Saddam himself was also acting under a similar desire not to do anything to provoke his own killing during his capture. So he got his “day in court”, which by and large he used quite effectively, from his own point of view. And now, it appears he is about to be killed, anyway.
I imagine the Bushites will hail Saddam’s execution as further vindication of their invasion. The whole, very disquieting “legacy” left by the trial process– both inside Iraq and in terms of the development of further respect for the “rule of law” wordwide– is another matter, completely.
But then, the Bushites’ decision to invade Iraq was itself a flagrant violation of the whole concept of “rule of law” in the international arena. Hard to see how anything much constructive from the rule-of-law viewpoint could have been expected to flow from that…

More Light!

We’ve now gone through the period of the shortest day, here in the northern hemisphere. From now on, we will have more light.
We Quakers frequently use the term “Light” to refer to the divine, or to the sense of general spiritual enlightment on which we wait, expectantly, whenever we worship together.
Please G-d, let the there be a lot more of it in the world.
Ethiopia sending its army and air force against Somalia? Where are the powers in the world that will stop this madness?
George Bush planning to increase the size of the US occupation force in Iraq? Where is the powerful citizens’ movement here in the US to say “No way! Get them out now!”
Yes, we all need more Light.
… As we stood at our street-corner peace demonstration here in Charlottesville on Thursday, I had a sense for the first winter solstice-time since we’ve been maintaining this peace presence every week that now, finally, the tide in our country has begun to turn deeply in our direction.
(Though we still have a long, long way to go, in order to (1) Get all of our troops out of Iraq, and (2) find a new, more egalitarian balance in our country’s relations with the rest of the world.)
Personally, though, I’m feeling a sense of being deeply blessed. My three kids, aged 21 through 28, are all back with us for Christmas, along with two of their three significant others. We have a warm home full of fun and laughter. We have plenty– far too much!– to eat. It was pretty easy for all the kids to get back here.
Over this past year I’ve visited with families and communities in northern Uganda and Palestine who most certainly don’t have these blessings. In both places, the perpetuation of a decades-long state of war, and the associated restrictions and movement controls imposed by governmental authorities, have reduced entire communities to deep poverty. In both places a large proportion of the people don’t have the basic physical things required for human flourishing. In both places, too, the imposition of draconian movement controls separates cultivators from their lands and people from their birthplaces; these movement controls also impose huge social wounds by splitting families and wrecking livelihoods.
So yes, let there be a lot more Light in the weeks and months ahead. For the peoples of northern Uganda, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, Somalis, and Ethiopians– and all the others of our brothers and sisters bent low under the burden of bitter conflict… And for US Americans and the other peoples who both suffer from conflict and also bear a disproportionate responsibility for its perpetuation and sometimes its extreme exacerbation. (Being violent is also a sickness of the soul.)
Perhaps if the United States can now start to creep back down off its self-erected pedestal of global unilateralism and toengage more respectfully and more thoughtfully with the other nations of the world that action itself might have a much broader demonstration effect, or ripple effect, as well?
After all, if pursuit of a policy of militarism, unilateralism, and arrogance has not succeeded for the world’s most heavily armed power, then surely everyone, everywhere can see the extreme limits on the usefulness of such a policy?
Oh wait. Most of the world’s other peoples and governments understood that a long time ago. Now, we US Americans just need to catch up…

Sistani foils the occupiers’ plot (again)

So now, it appears that not only has Ayatollah Sistani blocked the Bushists’ plan to cut off and isolate Moqtada al-Sadr– but also, the main Shiite party the Bushists were hoping would help them in their plan, SCIRI, has started distancing itself rapidly from it, too…
AP’s Qassim Abdul-Zahra is quoting Shiite parliamentarians visiting Najaf as saying that an aide to Ayatollah Sistani today said that Sistani “does not support” a US-instigated plan to construct a new governing coalition that would exclude and isolate Sadr.
Abdul-Zahra wrote,

    “There are obstacles in the face of forming this coalition, because al-Sistani does not support it. So we will work to strengthen the (Shiite) alliance,” said Hassan al-Sunnaid, of the Dawa Party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
    Ali al-Adib, also a Dawa Party member, said al-Sistani “does not support such blocs because they will break Shiite unity.”
    An official close to al-Sistani, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the cleric “will not bless nor support any new bloc or front. He only supports the unity of the Shiites.”

This AP reporter does seem a little unduly under the sway of the US spinmeisters in Baghdad, since he describes the US plan as being one “to persuade Iraq’s political leaders to set aside sectarian interests and work together for the sake of national unity.”
However, as Reidar Visser has pointed out in a comment at this JWN post,

    It should be pointed out that there IS already in place a [governing] coalition across sectarian lines and the only new proposal is to make it more narrow, by chopping off Sadrists and possibly some Sunni elements. Sistani has given his support for the existing government. Why would he want to support the proposed, more narrow alternative?

Anyway, this would be far from the first time that Sistani has foiled the political machinations of the US occupying forces in Iraq. (It is also at least the second time he has saved Moqtada Sadr from a potentially lethal US scheme.)
Qassim Abdul-Zahra reports that after visiting Sistani the delegation went to talk to Sadr, who was also (I believe) in Najaf. He wrote that Sadr had agreed to allow the members of his bloc to end the walkout from the parliament that they started to protest PM Maliki’s recent meeting with President Bush, in Amman.
However, Abdul-Zahra also quoted Khaled al-Attiya, an independent who is parliament’s deputy speaker, as implying that Sadr hasn’t given his final answser on that yet: “He will give his final decision to rejoin the government and parliament after Eid al-Adha.” That will apparently be on around January. 4.
Meanwhile, AFP’s Hassan Abdel-Zahra (related? who knows?) reported more forthrightly that,

    Talks to woo supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr back into Iraq’s ruling coalition broke up without agreement after he insisted on a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.
    Nevertheless, participants in the talks expressed confidence that his 32 lawmakers and six ministers would soon return rejoin the government…
    “They agreed to all our demands, except scheduling a withdrawal for the occupier. This demand will be discussed during the next meeting,” Abu Firas al-Mutairi, a political official from Sadr’s movement, told reporters.

This reporter also, intriguingly, wrote this:

    The Pentagon has explicitly blamed Sadr and his militia for much of the sectarian violence engulfing Iraq.
    Sunni politicians have threatened to pull out of Maliki’s coalition if the Shiite prime minister fails to halt attacks on Sunni civilians by Shiite militants and publicly denounce Sadr’s alleged involvement in the violence.
    But the main Shiite plank in the proposed “moderate coalition”, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), rejects this approach, calling for Sadr to be brought back on board.

Okay, first of all, note this reporter’s unexamined use of Pentagon “spin” in framing this portion of the story… Firstly, by not including any critique of the Pentagon’s attempt to blame only the Sadrists for the anti-Sunni sectarian violence– a claim that certainly is not supported by the available evidence. Secondly, by implying in the second para there that all the Sunni pols have threatened to pull out unless Maliki publicly denounces Sadr– not true. And thirdly, when he calls the US-proposed coalition the “moderate coalition”. (Okay, so he put that in tell-tale scare quotes, thereby perhaps distancing himself a little from endorsement of the Bushist-originated monicker.)
But mainly, regarding that small portion of the AFP story, which is tucked into it only at the very end, note that even Bush’s hoped-for buddies from SCIRI are now reported as dissociating themselves from the isolate-Moqtada campaign.
So what is the Bushists’ Plan B, again?

Battle for the soul of the Saud family’s kingdom

I think Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world named after a single family? [Subsequent correction: More precisely: SA is one of two countries currently named for their ruling families, with the other being the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. (Same general point about the importance of “family” relations to politics and governance. But thanks to Jefferson for pointing this out.) ~HC.] And now, a battle “royal” is being waged in Saudi Arabia for the ear of King Abdullah ibn Abdul-Aziz– and indeed over the entire direction of the country’s policies.
On one side: Abdullah’s nephew the former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar ibn Sultan ibn Abdul-Aziz– and presumably also Bandar’s father Crown Prince Sultan, Sultan’s other sons, and perhaps also most of Sultan’s full brothers from the “Sudairi” wife of the notable (very) late King Abdul-Aziz al-Saud.
On the other: another nephew, recently departed ambassador to Washington Prince Turki ibn Faisal ibn Abdul-Aziz, along with his brother the ailing Foreign Minister Prince Saud ibn Faisal, and other sons of the late King Faisal (but presumably not Faisal’s daughter Haifa who is married to Bandar.)
The core issue being disputed: should the Kingdom align itself with the US and Israel, in particular, in an attempt to roll back a large perceived expansion of Syrian and Iranian power in the region (the position that, reports from several experienced observers agree, is being espoused by Bandar’s group)? Or, should it continue to pursue the discreet alliance with Syria that has long been a hallmark of Saudi diplomacy while also continuing to, at the very least, pursue normal diplomatic relations with Iran (the position reportedly espoused by Turki’s group)?
It is this dispute, and a lot of related skulduggery by, in particular, Bandar that apparently lies behind Turki’s recent, extremely hasty departure from Washington.
After all, why should Turki, an experienced player in the world of international affairs, have abandoned his post in DC so very precipitously unless it was to attend to affairs of state of the most serious nature conceivable, back home in Riyadh?
That is, to battle over the ear of the monarch.
(Turki’s people had said, when he left town so fast back on Dec. 11, that it was “for family reasons.” Yes– but then “family” in that family-ruled country can mean a vast array of things.)
For many decades, back when he was Crown Prince– and even before that, as head of the Kingdom’s tribe-based National Guard– Abdullah was a key and faithful supporter of maintaining a good working relationship with the Asad family rulers of Syria.
For his part, Bandar has a long history– dating at least back to the days of the Reagan administration’s support of the Nicaraguan Contras– of working alongside US and Israeli intelligence operatives in pursuit of covert operations… And some recent reports say he is doing that again: working with, in particular, Dick Cheney and people in his (extremely pro-Israeli) entourage to support various operations aimed at undermining or even toppling the Asad regime in Syria.
Robin Wright has an article in today’s WaPo in which she reports that Bandar had been sneaking back into DC in recent weeks for secretive meetings with Cheney and his people– and doing so without telling his cousin, Turki, while Turki was still the ambassador here.
Not known right now: the degree to which King Abdullah knew of and supported Bandar’s goings-on.
In “normal” times the 82-year-old Abdullah would most likely have happily left the conduct of most of the Kingdom’s foreign affairs to his Foreign Minister, Prince Saud. But now is not normal times. Iraq is falling apart. Some figures in the Kingdom have been warning of a huge explosion of Iranian influence in the region– including also in the Kingdom’s eastern province, where there is large concentration of Shiites. Al-Qaeda, which threatens the Sauds from a very different direction indeed, has been able to re-group in significant pockets in Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Prince Saud has been reported as very sick. Cheney and his people have been eagerly whispering in Abdullah’s ear… And Crown Prince Sultan– who at 78 is no spring chicken, either– has also been eager to have his say.
More so than most states in today’s Middle East, “Saudi” Arabia has been a continuing construct of international diplomacy. So what is apparently happening there now is not only about whether Cheney and his Israeli friends will succeed in winning substantial support from the Kingdom in their plots and plans against Syria. It is not only– as some have thought— about whether the Kingdom intervenes robustly to prop up the Sunnis of Iraq. It is also, centrally, about the “soul” of the Saudi kingdom itself.

Virgil Goode vs. Thomas Jefferson

Our local Virginia Republican Congressman, Virgil Goode thinks he’s a good(e) American. We’ve written about him here before. He also wears the “good(e) book” on his sleeve.
He’s also likely unfamiliar with Thomas Jefferson, author of, among other things, the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. Never mind that Monticello, Jefferson’s home, is in Goode’s district.
JWN devotees may have seen Helena’s quick “tag” of a Charlottesville weekly paper’s revelation of an astonishing Goode letter, via the new del.icio.us “Things I’ve Tagged” feature on the right side of this blog.
Goode’s Islamophobic letter is lighting up the blogosphere and even the mainstream media. His press conference late yesterday deserves even greater scrutiny. What he says is an affront not just to Muslim Americans, but to any American who “gives a hoot” about our founding values. Below, I provide my own transcript of Goode’s appalling comments – with my own annotations and a Jeffersonian test inserted.
Goode has deluded himself into thinking that his critics are not reading his letter. Let’s get that out of the way first. Here again is the original letter. (Unbalanced, run-on sentences in the original; emphasis added.):

Dear Mr. Cruickshank:
Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.
The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

Unlike our outgoing Senator George “Macaca” Allen, Goode has been anything but apologetic. In his press conference late yesterday, Goode was as defiant as George W. Bush has been in defending his “cause” – with one difference: Goode is the only politician I know who makes our current President seem “brilliant” – relatively speaking.
At least for now, you can watch Goode’s press conference via the WVIR TV29 web site, under “featured videos.” Goode, speaking in his standard “goode-ole-boy drawl,” shows no signs of backing down. Here’s my own transcription (with annotation) of nearly all of the “event.”
Preface Note: Rather than insert the “sic” emphasis repeatedly, please keep in mind that the following transcription is phonetic, that is, literally “as heard.” Some “suthun” politicos still speak this way. Watch the video yourself if you think I’ve got the “Goode-‘ole-boy” twang wrong. Grammar gaffes are in the original, including those by our local reporters.

Goode: Thaynk ya fuh bein’ he-uhr… I uhpreciate you’all being here at one time. I know several of, uh, press asked about meeting, and we thought it would be best to do it all at one time.
This is, ah, just to me not an open press conference…

Continue reading “Virgil Goode vs. Thomas Jefferson”

New site to read and discuss the ISG report

The Institute for the Future of the Book and Lapham’s Quarterly, which is edited by former Harper’s magazine editor Lewis Lapham, have established a new website that will enable a broad web-based discussion of the report of the Iraq Study Group.
If you go to the site you’ll find the main navigation bar along the top. The greenish buttons there have drop-down menus through which you can access the entire published text of the report, including its appendices. I find navigating through the report’s text using these links considerably easier than navigtaing through it as a PDF file… So that’s already one advantage. But the further innovation that the folks at IF:Book have added is to put a “comments” pane right there on the page alongside the main text, with the possibility of having comments keyed to either individual paragraphs or whole sections of the text.
They see this, rightly, as allowing a whole new role for a text such as a book text, and thus for the entire social role of books.
I’m pretty excited about this. I’m also very happy to keep up a sustained and serious public discussion of the ISG report– especially in light of the attempts of the neocons and others to sweep it under the table or dismiss it as “long ago discredited” (Krauthammer, etc.) Therefore, as you can see when you go there, I’ve been one of the first commenters there; and I am eager to see the project take off as fast as possible.
I believe– and certainly hope– they’ll be opening it to comments from the public very soon, and I’ll let you know when that happens. (Frankly, it would be great if some others of the “invited” commenters they have gotten on board would do their bit to get the project rolling along… So far, there’s just M.J. Rosenberg and me… )
Anyway, head on over there. If you have comments about the project and leave them here I’m sure the folks at IF:Book will read and react to them.