Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
A Question for Rick Perry
When Sen. Barack Obama was running for president, it emerged that one of his informal advisors, former Clinton official Rob Malley, had met with members of Hamas as part of his work with International Crisis Group. The right-wing media went bezerk, and the Obama campaign distanced itself from Malley, a respected scholar and former diplomat.
Now we learn one of Perry's informal advisors, Gen. (Ret.) Peter Pace, has been shilling for the terrorist group Mujahedeen Khalq along with a boatload of other people from both sides of the aisle -- including former Obama Administration National Security Advisor Gen. (Ret.) Jim Jones.
What is the appropriate response here? Should Gov. Perry distance himself from those who have associated with and advocated on behalf of Mujahedeen Khalq?
Less progressive politicking,
Less progressive politicking, more policy analysis, من فضلك.
Oh, please, like this blog
Oh, please, like this blog has taken it easy on the Obama Administration?!
No, it's okay, because the
No, it's okay, because the MEK is a resistance organization which uses sometimes-violent means to fight a right-wing government with theocratic tendencies which oppresses millions of people, whereas Hamas... well, nevermind.
Mujahedeen Khalq is at least
Mujahedeen Khalq is at least as much of a "democracy" movement as the guys we're supporting in Libya.
Doesn't Mujahedeen Khalq deserve air support, too?
The Obama campaign pulled
The Obama campaign pulled away from Malley because he had become a distraction. Gov. Perry is only generally aware of where Iran is, and is therefore not distracted in any way.
You would have thought, at
You would have thought, at this point, that the Washington establishment would have learned the lesson - backing extremist terrorist organizations who are "enemies of our enemies" is an idiot's game. Proxy blowback has been seen time and time again - from the CIA backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during the Nasser era to the support given to Osama bin Laden (via Prince Turki and the Saudis) to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, it's just a dumb, dumb move. The same goes for Pakistani support for various terrorist outfits operating in Kashmir.
However, it'd be more interesting to host a discussion on Ron Paul's take on Iran - or is that no-go territory? IPI vs. TAPI is perhaps the topic the U.S. State Department wants most to keep under wraps, along with keeping up the silence on Bahrain's domestic repression while condemning that of Syria. Just goes to show that Hillary Clinton is almost identical to Condoleeza Rice, doesn't it?
Likewise, how about the Russian PM pointing out Condi Rice's role in Georgia assault on South Ossetia in 2008? According to him, the Georgian people cut off communications with the Russians as soon as Condi Rice visited - the implication being that she gave the Georgians the green light to launch their idiotic invasion, correct?
After Rice’s trip to Tbilisi, Medvedev said, “[Saakashvili] stopped communicating with me, stopped talking with me, stopped writing, and stopped responding to my efforts to get in touch. . . . It may be a coincidence, but I’m almost certain that at that moment a plan came into being for the adventure that happened in August.” - Bloomberg
Stupid pet tricks.
"Oh, please, like this blog
Yes, yes it has.
And the little half-hearted criticism there is is buttered up with accolades and apologetics.
Don't want to crap where you eat, after all.
Ex -- No doubt this group is
Ex -- No doubt this group is bat sh*t crazy. No doubt this group has US blood on its hands. But if this group hasn't attacked a flea in the past 10+ years and says they have renounced violence, are they really a terrorist group? And what would it say about US CT policy and incentives to other groups if we keep them listed because of some combination of a) their craziness, b) their past, & c) the fact that the Iranian populace reviles them? Is there any room for a terrorist group to change its stripes? If so, does a group not only have to lose the terrorism, but also the crazy to get off the terrorist list? Honest questions...
Add your comment