Milton Friedman, the grandmaster of conservative economic theory in the postwar era and a prime force in the movement of nations toward lesser government and greater reliance on free markets and individual responsibility, died today. He was 94 years old.

Milton Friedman, a Leading Economist, Dies at 94 - New York Times

Iran is ready to share its missile systems with friends and neighbors, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards said, after he showed off missiles including some he said had cluster warheads.

Guards commander-in-chief Yahya Rahim Safavi also told Iran's Arabic-language Al-Alam TV late on Sunday the Guards had thousands of troops trained for suicide missions in case Iran was threatened although he said any U.S. attack was unlikely.

"We are able to give our missile systems to friendly and neighboring countries," Safavi told Al-Alam. A text of his comments in Farsi were obtained by Reuters on Monday.

Iran's ambassador to Lebanon, Mohammad Reza Sheibani, was quoted by Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency on Sunday as saying the Islamic Republic was ready to supply air defense systems -- without giving specifics -- to the Lebanese military.

"Tehran also considers this as its duty to help friendly countries which are exposed to invasion of the Zionist regime (Israel)," Sheibani was quoted saying, in response to what he said was a request by Lebanon's army commander, General Michel Suleiman, for help from friendly states.

Military experts said the exercises were to show off Iranian technology, although they say many systems are based on modified versions of equipment from other countries, such as North Korea.

Reuters | Iran ready to share missile systems with others

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

not a surprising sentiment but an interesting platform for this view

Army Times - Editorial

The bullet passed through Lance Corporal Juan Valdez- Castillo as his patrol moved down a muddy urban lane. It was a single shot. The marine fell against a wall, tried to stand and fell again. His squad leader, Sergeant Jesse Leach, faced where the shot had come from, raised his rifle and grenade launcher and quickly stepped between the sniper and the bloodied marine. He walked backward, scanning, ready to fire.
...
In recent months, military officers and enlisted marines say, the insurgents have been using snipers more frequently and with greater effect, disrupting the military's operations and fueling a climate of frustration and quiet rage.

Throughout Iraq, the threat has become serious enough that in late October the military held an internal conference about it, sharing the experiences of combat troops and discussing tactics to counter it. There has been no ready fix.

Waiting for the ghost's next move - Americas - International Herald Tribune

Decius wrote:

adam wrote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday ordered the lifting of joint U.S.-Iraqi military checkpoints around the Shiite militant stronghold of Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad -- another apparent move to assert his authority with the Americans and appeal to his Shiite support base.

*raised eyebrows*
ungrateful is as ungrateful does

I think he has to assert his independence or the Iraqis will not take him seriously. The Iraqi government ought to be a voice that Americans hear, and that occaisonally disagrees with Americans. If not, it is irrelevant.

I agree he has to assert his independance but I think this is just a demonstration that he is a figurehead and, almost but not quite, a mouthpiece of Muqtada al-Sadr rather than a figure able or seeking to unify the country as a democratic and tolerant of diversity society. My objection was not that he chooses rightly from the point of view of Iraqi domestic opinion to assert his independance but his choice of issues upon which to push.
I do think he is ungrateful to the west and I think if he believed in western values he would support a more vigorous approach to the Mahdi Army militia and other Shia militia. I am not remotely convinced the Iraqis do take him seriously because he is not his own man. He's not pro-Western enough to introduce real change nor partisan enough to satisfy Muqtada al-Sadr. His government is propped up by principally American and some British lives and body parts. When Western troops leave, as seeems inevitable, all vestiges - the thin charade of an Iraqi political center - will collapse and al-Maliki will go with it.
The article recently on Fake News and Iraqi satire on TV reminded me mostly of people like Brecht and Weill and the last days of the Weimar republic.
My remarks were born of bitterness. I read articles about the troops like the Doonesbury one or by Bob Herbert and al-Maliki's attitude seemed at that moment, by not supporting the search for that US soldier, an act of betrayal. Part of me wants to say to all Iraqis who don't want peace "a plague on both your houses". I think we have to leave and I think in a few years we'll have to go back in to start picking up the pieces and I hate the loss of lives and the destruction of able bodies that is happening now and will happen when we're forced to go back in. We will leave and there will be al'Qaeda training camps. There will be chaos and our hand will be forced. I am angry that no one has stepped forward with the desire and ability to hold Iraq together. After the years of suffering under Saadam Iraq is spiralling into violence and chaos and we are powerless to prevent it.
The stupidity of it sickens me. I don't ask that al-Maliki is grateful to the American government or the American people. I expect him to be grateful to the GIs - as you would be to a fireman pulling you out of a burning building.

RE: U.S. Obeys Order to Abandon Checkpoints - New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday ordered the lifting of joint U.S.-Iraqi military checkpoints around the Shiite militant stronghold of Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad -- another apparent move to assert his authority with the Americans and appeal to his Shiite support base.

*raised eyebrows*
ungrateful is as ungrateful does

U.S. Obeys Order to Abandon Checkpoints - New York Times

f you are an aspiring dictator looking for ways to muzzle the independent media, do a stint in Moscow. The Kremlin's successful recipe has been at work for a decade.

Meanwhile: Russia's last refuge: the blogosphere - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

Nearly every night here for the past month, Iraqis weary of the tumult around them have been turning on the television to watch a wacky-looking man with a giant Afro wig and star-shaped glasses deliver the grim news of the day.

awesome and brave

A TV Comedy Turns an Unconventional Weapon on Iraq’s High and Mighty: Fake News - New York Times

A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez's made the remarks during an interview with Arabic television station al-Jazeera.

The state department says Mr Fernandez was quoted incorrectly - but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words.

so they didn't like what he said and lied thinking no one would notice

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq

Decius wrote:

this is why I find this matter interesting. I understand your perspective. This cuts very close to freedom of expression, and challenges the boundaries. Certainly they've a right to retain their culture, in private.
...
I think there is a political dimension to this in which tolerance for things like the veil is darkened by the fact that it symbolises a domestic group which can and has murdered people and threatens to continue to do so

wonderful discussion
I have to say I come down on the side of individual expression in this context
a, because I believe in individual liberty except under extreme conditions
b, because we rightly expect Muslims to accept what they perceive as intolerable insults to Islam and so I feel hypocritical not to similarly defend their rights to the hijab or veil
c, for the more practical reason that Muslims already feel persecuted in our societies and I see no good reason to add fuel to the fire by asking some Muslims to comply on this matter when it adds little to our society and causes a great deal of damage to community relationships. I think things like this fuel terrorism.

These woman are free to choose the veil or not (in law if not in custom depending on what tradition they come from) very often it is a deliberate religious and political statement. There is pressure from elements within the community for women to do this but it is wrong to suggest that many do not make a very deliberate and conscious choice.
I absolutely agree that the debate is "darkened by the fact that it [the veil] symbolises a domestic group which can and has murdered people and threatens to continue to do so". My first reaction was to think of Snow Falling on Cedars. We attack the symbols of our fears. Symbols are very important. On the one hand the veil is symbolic of fundamentalist Islam's treatment of women where in Afganistan women were denied access to little more than a cursory education. It is a symbol of being apart and seperate. I think Muslims have every right to assert a distinct identity as do Jews or the Amish ( the latter being interesting because they physically and culturally exclude themselves -- but they do not fly into buldings or bomb buses). This is about threat and the appropriate response. I say attack Islam on the basis of its treatment of women, homosexuals, the barbarity of certain aspects of Sharia law as exibited in Saudi Arabia and politically the democratic deficit in most Muslim States (although I'm with Fukuyama you build structures and the bedrock of democracy and let it grow from below rather than impose it).
A symbol is under attack and I want to see Muslim women reject that symbol, not because of any coersion, but because they choose to reject Islamic fascism and inferior status but I believe this is only something the Muslim community can decide and specifically Muslim women. I think encouraging a seige mentality only helps the extremists.

RE: BBC NEWS | Politics | MP tells veil woman 'let it go'