1115.org

“I’m a gambler, and I will take you by surprise
Gambler, I’ll aim this straight between your eyes
Gambler, yeah I know all the words to say
‘Cause I’m a gambler, I only play the game my way, yeah” - Madonna - “Gambler“

The old joke about George W. Bush dating back to his Texas days is that he was born on third base and assumed that he hit a triple. As Governor and now President, Bush shows no signs of a change in attitude, not surprising given the modified rules under which he governs. As his supporters continue their howls of “LIBRUL MEDIA,” Bush is allowed to claim victory whenever he likes, yet is never tagged with failure even when results fall short (or are the opposite) of his stated goals.

By signing on to the neo-conservative agenda of regime change/democracy promotion, Bush made a large bet on an untested theory in an unstable yet vitally important region. The invasion of Iraq, though sold on threats of WMD, is now (retroactively) about trying to democratize a dictatorship. Realists warned that given Iraq’s population (an artificial blend of Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis), and likelihood of post-Saddam fundamentalist rule, pre-war Iraq wouldn’t look much different from the post-war Iraq. After a series of questionable elections, a farcical constitution-drafting process and a deeply flawed final product, gridlock is the only thing keeping Iraq from Sharia rule and possibly civil war. None of this kept the President (enabled by an uncritical media) from declaring victory in the quest to spread freedom and keep America safe.

It’s never been properly explained how Iraq in civil war under laws that discriminate against minority religions and women makes us safer or stands as an example for the rest of the world (in fact when a 2005 U.S. State Department report showed a spike in serious terror attacks, the administration did the obvious: they decided to stop releasing the report) but it’s certainly a warning to be careful for what we wish. But being careful isn’t in the President’s lexicon, befitting a man who doesn’t have to worry about downside as only the upside (or what passes for it) sees the light of day. Like the stereotypical Texan, he sees himself as a gambler; but unlike a normal punter, he’s not playing with his own chip stack, but the lives of American soldiers and the money of its citizens. And when he loses, he simply borrows more and ups the stakes.

Like many Americans, I have been following the story of Abdul Rahman, the Afghani man who was facing execution for the high crime of being a Christian converting to Christianity. The confluence of issues from religious freedom and the wars said to guarantee it, to domestic outrage against the bloody savages seems made up, ready made for The Bible 2: Electric Boogaloo. I’ve been harshly critical of religion here, not because I’m anti-faith, but because of the continual attempts to fuse religion and government for political gain. Here’s the President from just last week:

An interesting debate in the world is whether or not freedom is universal, see, whether or not — people say, there’s old Bush imposing his values. See, I believe freedom is universal. I believe liberty is a universal thought. It’s not an American thought, it is a universal thought. And if you believe that, then you ought to take great comfort and joy in helping others realize the benefits of liberty. The way I put it is, there is an Almighty God. One of the greatest gifts of that Almighty God is the desire for people to be free, is freedom. And therefore — (applause) — and therefore, this country and the world ought to say, how can we help you remain free? What can we do to help you realize the blessings of liberty?

Now look, I don’t expect everyone to be as offended by that quote as I am. But beyond the question of whether or not an elected official should be speaking like that is the reality on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, the two places where the President is taking comfort and joy in applying a fresh coat of liberty. For the last few years, the administration has parried questions on the escalating violence with platitudes about sovereignty and constitutions. Don’t worry, this will all go away as soon as the elections are held and constitutions drafted.

Well, in Afghanistan, the elections have been held, and the constitution drafted. During that process, many observers raised questions about the inherent conflict between sharia (Islamic law) and the freedom fetish espoused by Bush. Those concerns are now coming home to roost, from Hamid Karzai’s limited power outside of Kabul to the rampaging warlords and their continued poppy production to the atrocious treatment of women to the case of Rahman. The irony is that Rahman would no doubt be dead today without fierce pressure from the Bush administration (who apparently values the political benefits of satiating their base more than the principle of Afghan sovereignty) and the suggestion of insanity (not by Rahman’s defense, but by the Afghan government eager to get out of a tough spot.) As Rahman is now safely under asylum (Italian, not insane) I’d like to know why there isn’t more outrage from Christians when their religion is cited in insanity defenses?

While the Christians rode to Rahman’s rescue from the harsh realities of sharia in Afghanistan, it’s hard to picture them doing the same in this case:

Shiite death squads in Iraq have been systematically targeting gay Iraqis for persecution and execution. The attacks follow a death-to-gays fatwa issued by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani last October. In a question and answer section of his website, Sistani says homosexuality is “forbidden” and calls for the killing of gays in the “worst, most severe way.”

Funny, I have heard nary a peep from the freedom fetish crowd or the Christian right. Maybe sharia with a pro-Jesus twist is just what they’re looking for.

But while Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan) sucks up most of the media oxygen, democracy promotion’s full free-fall in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip is relegated to page A27. Post 9-11, the Bush administration began exerting pressure on Yasser Arafat and his Fatah party, culminating in 2003’s appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as prime minister. Abbas’ mandate was to negotiate with Israeli leaders and after Arafat’s death to hold free elections. Before, during, and after the January 2006 Palestinian elections, Bush administration duplicity, arrogance, and hypocrisy was on public display. It started with an attempt to buy votes in the weeks before the election:

The Bush administration is spending foreign aid money to increase the popularity of the Palestinian Authority on the eve of crucial elections in which the governing party faces a serious challenge from the radical Islamic group Hamas.

The approximately $2 million program is being led by a division of the U.S. Agency for International Development. But no U.S. government logos appear with the projects or events being undertaken as part of the campaign, which bears no evidence of U.S. involvement and does not fall within the definitions of traditional development work.

U.S. officials say their low profile is meant to ensure that the Palestinian Authority receives public credit for a collection of small, popular projects and events to be unveiled before Palestinians select their first parliament in a decade. Internal documents outlining the program describe the effort as “a temporary paradigm shift” in the way the aid agency operates.
[…]
U.S. and Palestinian officials say they fear the election, scheduled for Wednesday, will result in a large Hamas presence in the 132-seat legislature.

Those U.S. and Palestinian fears were not only justified, but low-balled. Hamas didn’t just win a large presence, they won the election. While the administration, CIA, and State Department all got caught flat-footed on this development, our Saudi pals had it pegged:

A confidential Saudi report prepared just weeks before the Palestinian elections predicted a Hamas victory in Gaza and the West Bank and puts the blame on the United States: “By failing to strengthen (President Mahmoud) Abbas’s position, the U.S. has paved the way for a Hamas victory,” states a document prepared by the Saudi National Security Assessment Project.

“Moreover, the U.S administration’s faith in the power of elections to transform people makes it oblivious to the possibility that the democratic process is often a double-edged sword which can have unintended consequences.”.

Unintended consequences don’t fit into Bush administration planning or reaction, so when life handed them lemons, they made beef stew:

The United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again, according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats.

The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement.

So much for the will of the people and tent-pitching democracy. But in addition to running counter to the grand unifying Bush theory of God-given universal freedom being the real holy grail, the U.S. isolation of Hamas is bringing the fringe elements to the fore:

Egypt’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood Organization has started a fundraising campaign to help finance the new Palestinian government to be formed by Hamas.

“Financial crisis” makes people do things they might not otherwise do. Naturally all of this is doing wonders for American credibility in the Arab world, but the interesting results have been produced right here at home:

Democracy Push by Bush Attracts Doubters in Party (NYT): “You are hearing more and more questions about the administration’s approach on this issue,” said Lorne W. Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, a foundation linked to the Republican Party that supports democratic activities abroad. “The ‘realists’ in the party are rearing their heads and asking, ‘Is this stuff working?’ ”

CBS poll (3/13/06): WHY DID BUSH DECIDE TO GO TO WAR?
Protect the U.S. (from terror, WMDs) 21%
To remove Saddam Hussein 9
Because of 9/11 7
Free the Iraqis/promote democracy 3
Protect U.S. oil interests/make money 19
Finish G.H.W. Bush’s Gulf War 11
Others in Administration wanted to 8

In light of those developments, it’s less than comforting to know that Condoleezza Rice recently asked for $75 million to promote democracy in Iran. Hey, it’s going so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories, Bush the gambler should double down on any two cards. He can’t lose, and even if he does, he can just take out another marker in the name of the U.S. people.

*Late Update: It really never ends:

Senior Shiite politicians said today that the American ambassador has told Shiite officials to inform the Iraqi prime minister that President Bush does not want him to remain the country’s leader in the next government.

It is the first time the Americans have directly intervened in the furious debate over the country’s top job, the politicians said, and it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders.
[…]
Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush “doesn’t want, doesn’t support, doesn’t accept” Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc.