Washington – Baghdad – Tehran

Iraqi MPs approve partial cabinet,” BBC News, 28 April 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4492457.stm (from Democratic Underground).

Remember this blog saying something about the Iraq-Iran alliance, and American efforts to create a Shia Gulf

MPs in Iraq have approved a new government by a large majority despite failure to agree on several top posts.

Among the names on the new list is Shia politician Ahmed Chalabi, a one-time US favourite who fell from grace.

Mr Chalabi will also take one of the deputy prime minister’s posts.

Chalabi is an Iranian agent and sometimes American agent. He is a Shia Iraqi patriot who knows his country benefits from connectivity with stronger powers. The Sunni Arab Nationalist offer disconnection and despair. Chalabi, Iran, and America offer Iraq a way congratulations.

Congratulations to the Iraqi people and to Minister Chalabi. It has been a long journey.

Update: Atrios, Martin Stabe, and BTC News completely miss the point.

Update 2: Juan Cole doesn’t mention an Iran angle, but adds some sensible thoughts

I wonder if this appointment was a sop to the more secular-leaning members of the United Iraqi Alliance, who must have been extremely alarmed that the fundamentalist Fadila Party was making a bid for petroleum minister. It should be remembered that in contemporary Iraq, as in Jacksonian America, cabinet posts are sources of patronage and wealth, since there is a sort of spoils system. Chalabi will place his Iraqi National Congress members throughout the ministry.

Hmmm… bribery side-payments as a method of control… hmmm…

The Economist: Vote Labour

There Is No Alternative (Alas),” The Economist, 28 April 2005, http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3910189&fsrc=RSS.

Agreeing with me and Tom Friedman, The Economist endorses Tony Blair for the 05/05/05 British general election.

Most elections are won or lost on the economy, wealth and jobs. In that case Labour should be further ahead even than it is. Britain has enjoyed 13 years of uninterrupted, pretty steady economic growth, eight of them under this Labour government. Much of the credit due to Labour is for carrying on with the pro-market inheritance from Margaret Thatcher, but Gordon Brown, Labour’s chancellor, also deserves praise for having given independent control over monetary policy to the Bank of England in 1997 and for keeping both public spending and taxes under control in his early years in office. For that reason, voters may feel calm about the likelihood that Mr Brown will succeed Mr Blair as prime minister at some stage during the next four years. He is unlikely to change his economic ideas just because he moves his office to 10 Downing Street.

As Tony Blair’s Labour government leads Britain forward, the Tory Party hypocritically falls apart

As the The basic background to this election is that Mr Blair has continued to hog the centre-right ground in British politics, as he has done ever since becoming Labour’s leader in 1994. Michael Howard, the Conservative Party’s leader since 2003, has sought to share some of that ground, at least on the NHS. But he has blurred his party’s own identity by failing to offer a tax-cutting alternative and by his appallingly hypocritical opposition to Mr Blair’s brave effort to ease universities’ financial problems by allowing them to charge fees to British students—a reform that could have been taken from a Thatcherite textbook. Hence Mr Howard’s resort to traditional Tory populism on immigration in order to make his party look distinctive. To The Economist’s taste, this is a terrible move: we favour fluid migration, both on grounds of liberty and for practical economic reasons. The Tories instead favour illiberal limits and a labour-allocation system that smacks of central planning.

Tony Blair isn’t a perfect leader, but he’s far better than the Liberal Democrat (left) or Conservative (incoherent) alternatives. Vote Labour.

Our Friend Vietnam

Vietnam’s end of war celebrations to be muted,” Reuters, 28 April 2005, http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5729787&cKey=1114674631000 (from DU).

America Lost, Capitalism Won,” The Economist, 28 April 2005, http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3914886.

Vietnamese tourguards don’t care much about the “American War”

On the steps of the Reunification Palace in Ho Chi Minh City, a guide recounts the final, dramatic moments of the Vietnam war. On the morning of April 30th 1975, two tanks of the “liberation forces” crashed through the gates of what was then the presidential palace of South Vietnam, in what was then Saigon. One of the tank commanders raced to the roof to tear down the flag of the American-backed regime and raise a communist banner in its stead, symbolically reuniting the two halves of the country and putting an end to 30 years of conflict.

The guide himself, however, does not seem very stirred by this story. He tells it only halfway through his tour, as one of a number of historical anecdotes. Like most Vietnamese, he was born after the war, so feels little personal connection to the events he recounts. He is from the north, he says, but has come to the south to improve his English and find a good job. From the rooftop, he gazes not at the famous tanks enshrined in the grounds below, but at the high-rises sprouting from the city’s skyline, emblazoned with American brand names such as Citibank and Sheraton.

medium_oldmeetsnew_saigon_small.jpg
Communist Architecture

Hanoi agrees

Vietnam commemorates 30 years since “The American War” ended on Saturday, no longer simply exulting in the victory but instead urging people to look to the future.

Concerned that too visible a show of triumph could harm ties with the United States, the celebrations have been toned down compared with previous years.

The government’s talking of more market-based reforms

“The way we have been commemorating these historical dates is getting repetitive and overdosing on them may have a counter-effect,” he wrote.

We have to push ahead with reforms and stay away from self-satisfaction and the disease of talking too much about our achievements,” said Kiet, prime minister in the mid-1990’s.

medium_billboards_saigon_small.jpg
Skyline of Capitalist Saigon, see also the Samsung Billboard

While the people just make money

Little trace remains of any hostility towards America—just one, after all, of the many countries Vietnam fought during the past century. It went to war more recently (in 1979) with China, a perennial enemy over the last millennium, and the authorities still seem more suspicious of their northern neighbours and fellow communists than of anyone else. America and Vietnam restored diplomatic ties in 1995, and signed a trade pact in 2000. America is now Vietnam’s largest export market. Disputes between the two countries hinge more on tariffs and market access than on war crimes or missing soldiers.

Last year, United Airlines resumed flights to Ho Chi Minh City—which still bears the code SGN. A pilot who was lionised during the war for bombing the presidential palace in Saigon is now looking forward to captaining Vietnam Airlines’ first commercial flight to America—on one of the firm’s ten Boeing jets. Last month, Ho Chi Minh City received an American naval vessel for the second time in as many years. Locals scarcely batted an eyelid at the sight of uniformed American sailors wandering the streets.

The South is benefiting most from Hanoi’s liberalization, because of its connections with the United States and its history of free-market economics

The war exacerbated these differences. For one thing, the south suffered less from American bombing, leaving it with better infrastructure. What is more, northerners have lived under a communist regime since 1954, whereas southerners have much more recent experience of capitalism. The flight of well-to-do southerners in the face of the communist advance in 1975, and the subsequent exodus of boat people, has left the south with a bigger diaspora. These links to viet kieu, or overseas Vietnamese, give the south a more cosmopolitan outlook, and provide southern businessmen with capital and ideas.

medium_stylish_vietnamese_capitalists.jpg
Stylish Vietnamese Capitalists

Saigon is a huge part of the boom

Ho Chi Minh City alone accounts for 17% of national output, 30% of foreign investment and 40% of exports—far in excess of its 9% share of the population. Local income per head is roughly four times the national average. Throw in the four adjacent provinces, and the share of output rises to 40%, and of exports to 70%.

Ho Chi Minh City, for example, has refurbished a beautiful colonial building as an investment-promotion office. English-speaking officials enumerate the city’s many advantages with the help of PowerPoint displays and glossy brochures. The city government, explains one, can process applications for various business permits online. It is also starting up an “e-discussion” scheme to answer investors’ queries, in both English and Vietnamese.

America’s post-1972 betrayal of South Vietnam is shameful. Suspending military aid to the Republic of Vietnam was the worst action of the U.S. Congress in history, and the moment of Democrat Party bankruptcy. But this tragedy of the past does not change the present.

Vietnam is rapidly becoming a Thailand-class ally of the United States. Like America, Vietnam has strong interests in containing China and growing the world econony. That is why our ships are visiting her ports, and that is why Hanoi is the capital of America’s friend, Vietnam.

Daschle to Run Again? For What?

On the record with Tom Daschle,” by Tim Fernholz, Georgetown Voice, 28 April 2005, http://www.georgetownvoice.com/news/2005/04/28/News/On.The.Record.With.Tom.Daschle-942532.shtml?page=2 (from South Dakota Politics).

Daschle’s not content with Thune being the highest profile South Dakotan.

As to your own political career, do you foresee a return to public office, perhaps a run for South Dakota governor?

I’ve always felt that it’s important that you never close any doors, and I’m not going to be closing doors in my political life for the foreseeable future. I don’t have any current plans to get back into elective political office, but I won’t say, and I couldn’t say, that that wouldn’t happen. We’ll have to wait and see what the future holds and what opportunities present themselves.

Daschle’s wife is a professional DC lobbyist, and unlikely to move out to Pierre. Tom is unlikely to want to be a Representative. Thta leaves Senator, Vice President, or President.

He couldn’t run for Senate before 2008, when the election will be Johnson v. Rounds. In 2010 he can challenge Thune again. Of course, if Thune resigns his seat to become Vice President, there’s an empty seat Daschle might easily take. Of course, “Democrat” Representative Stephanie Herseth would want the spot too.

President or VP is just as likely. Daschle was close to running for President in ’04 — so close that the Sioux Falls Argus Leader said he was — so that’s most likely. He doesn’t have a chance, so hoping for an Executive spot doesn’t make sense. Then again, his hard-line opposition to President Bush during his (attempted) reelection didn’t make sense,either.

Barnett and Vader Criticize NCW Arrogance

The Seven Deadly Sins of Network-Centric Warfare,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Proceedings, pg 36-39, January 1999, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/7d.htm.

It’s Christmas on Hoth,” by Darth Vader, The Darth Side, 27 April 2005, http://darthside.blogspot.com/2005/04/its-christmas-on-hoth.html (from Slashdot).

Net-Centric Warfare is an attempt to use technology to win “conventional” (maneuver-based or Third Generation) wars more easily. It is often criticized by proponents of Fourth Generation Warfare, though both NCW and 4GW are partially right. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that NCW is not perfect. Grand Strategist Tom Barnett lists the following as the “seven deadly sins” of NCW

medium_tpmbarnett.gif
Dr. Barnett, whose mentor founded NCW,
criticizes the doctrine’s arrogance
  1. Lust -NCW Longs for an Enemy Worthy of Its Technological Prowess
  2. Sloth -NCW Slows the U.S. Military’s Adaptation to a MOOTW World
  3. Avarice -NCW Favors the Many and Cheap; the U.S. Military Prefers the Few and Costly
  4. Pride -NCW’s Lock-Out Strategies Resurrect Old Myths about Strategic Bombing
  5. Anger -NCW’s Speed-of-Command Philosophy Can Push Us into Shooting First and Asking Questions Later
  6. Envy – NCW Covets the Business World’s Self-Synchronization
  7. Gluttony – NCW’s Common Operating Picture Could Lead to Information Overload

The full article is available here.

More succinctly, Barnett’s thoughts are seconded by Darth Vader, dread lord of the Galactic Empire in his new blog, The Darth Side

medium_darth_vader_face_small.jpg
Lord Vader Criticizes Admiral Ozzol For NCW Arrogance

Admiral Ozzol took the fleet out of hyerspace too close to Hoth, and the Rebel Alliance were — you guessed it — alerted to our approach. The cornerstone of Ozzel’s arrogance is his insistence that rebel technology is so vastly inferior to Imperial technology that we need broker no caution.

This attitude is typical of a man who could not rephase his own fusion orb if his life depended on it. He cannot fathom what rebel engineers may accomplish out of desperation. People who are good with things, people like me, can appreciate the infinite diversity of possible tools buried in artful combinations of even the humblest technologies. Give me an hour to reconfigure an industrial grade repulsolift and I will give you an ion cannon and enough parts left over to build a droid to run it.

Besides running a hyper-advanced NCW space fleet, Darth Vader is proving himself to be an adept Fourth Generation Warrior. With the full might of the Galatic Empire behind him, his only problem is finding an heir to continue his House down the generations.

Update: Zen Pundit compares Barnett’s criticisms with Cebrowski’s original.

4GPS2 Network Disintegration (Netroots Homosexualists against Mainstream Liberals)

Bill Gates lies to National Public Radio,” by John, America Blog, 28 April 2005, http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/bill-gates-lies-to-national-public.html (from Eshcaton).

Remember this?

medium_4gps2_after.jpg
Key: Red, Attacks; Blue, Defender Fighters; Yellow, Defender Deserters; Purple, Defender Quislings

The graphic shows a classic 4th Generation Politics / 2nd Stage network-on-network attack. The right network has seen an opening and it trying to tear apart the left network. For an example, I used Microsoft’s abandonment of the Washington State Homosexualist Rights Bill. The goal of this sort of attack is to split the opposing network into opposing camps, furthering the attacker’s cause.

which sees the left network near collapse.

It’s working

I hate to say “lie” because I wanted to trust Gates on all of this. He really has been great on gay issues, and his foundation has been tremendous on AIDS funding. And he personally supports the state gay rights bill. And all of that is great.

So WTF was Gates talking about with NPR today?

NPR: “Was it a mistake to make the steps on the gay rights bill that you did, changing your support.”

Gates: “We didn’t change… we chose not to get involved in that.”

Ok, that was an outright lie and an attempt to mislead NPR and the American public. Microsoft has for years supported this legislation and this year they changed their mind and are no longer supporting it. How in God’s name is that not “changing” your position?

I’d like to think Gates has just been misinformed by his staff, but he’s a smart man and appears to know what he’s talking about here. He seems to have intentionally lied to NPR, and that hardly bodes well for Microsoft’s goodwill in handling this entire affair.

As if Microsoft is the movement and homosexualists are the sponsor!

For homosexualism to win, it needs an peaceful ideological network willing to push its political agenda. To do this it needs sponsors and allies, such as Microsoft. The left’s attack on Microsoft is stupid — it alienates a key ally while splitting its own movement.

Good.

Update: More good news from America Blog. I’ll quote it in full

More worthless, spineless Democrats in name only. These are your own God damn constituents he sold out, not to mention he’s giving fuel to the religious right nationwide, and you couldn’t give a damn, could you, Senators? Then again, Gates is rich, and when it comes down to it, what really is the difference between Tom DeLay and you two – money talks, doesn’t it.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said she was disappointed at the way the controversy has emerged — especially given Microsoft’s lengthy record in support of gay rights — but was satisfied with the Gates’ answers.

“They have a huge portfolio” of issues that are important to the company and cannot be expected to push all of them at the same time, she said.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she was reassured by Gates’ promise that Microsoft was looking at ways to “revisit” its decision to take a neutral stance on the gay-rights bill it had once championed.

The continuing collapse of the network of mainstream liberals and netroots libeals… Good.

The Needs for Legal Reform

China prepares for first-ever jury trials,” AFP, 25 April 2005, ( from The Horse’s Mouth through Simon World).

China is introducing real trial by jury…

Around 27,000 jurors will report for duty in China next week, state media said, as the country introduces jury trials in an attempt to reform a system widely criticised for its lack of independence.

The jurors will start work on May 1 helping decide both criminal and civil cases, sitting on a panel of three with judges, the China Daily reported.

Improving the jury system was one of nine major tasks the Supreme People’s Court mapped out for 2005 during a meeting in December.

but an usual type of juror

They were chosen through elections in January and February and are expected to have powers equal to those of a judge.

Are popularly elected jurors better or worse than randomly selected ones? That’s a good question, and China is clearly innovating. Hopefully the world will learn from her experiment.

At least it will be better than the old system…

Under the current system, judges are the sole arbiters in court cases but they have been widely criticised by the public for lack of independence from the government and the Communist Party.

China recognizes that an independent judiciary isn’t just a “human right” — it’s good for business. If investorsand entrepreneurs do not feel safe in the court system, they will leave. That’s the same reason America is modernizing her legal system, too.

Arbitrary justice is terrible for growth — whether its money skimming in Sichuan or jackpot awards against McDonalds in Shreveport.

The Grooming of John Thune

Behind The Scenes Photos,” LauraIngraham.com, 1 April 2005, http://www.lauraingraham.com/freephotos?action=viewPhotoSet&photoSetID=20 (from CCK)

What to make of this?

medium_thune_ingraham_california_thumbnail.jpg
Marine General John Sattler (Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionery Force [Fallujah]), Laura, and U.S. Senator and Mrs. John Thune (R-SD) talk before the concert on April 1, 2005 at Camp Pendleton.

South Dakotans don’t care about California trips. His peers in the Senate don’t either. What office requires hooking up with influential Republicans from around the country while establishing a national profile?

John Thune is being groomed for running as a Vice Presidential candidate in 2008.

Thune would be a great balancer for McCain, Giuliani, or any other Republican weak on “religious” issues. Senator Thune, besides being a giant-killer, is deeply popular with the religious Right.

John Thune is not the only option for GOP Vice President in 2008. But the party wants him to be a very strong option.

Update: Now The Hotline notices, too. CCK was still first.

The Final Days of the Third Stage of the 4GP Against Liberalism

All God’s Children Got Values, by Michael Walzer, Dissent, Spring 2005, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/sp05/walzer.htm (from MyDD).

I’ve written before how Fourth Generation War is applied to Fourth Generation Politics, and its first and second stages. This post looks at the final significant battle in the fourth generation struggle against American Liberalism — the battle for the Courts — and the reasons we have arrived here.

Liberalism had won: to begin with. There is no doubt about that. The register of its victory was signed by FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. Carter signed it. And those names were good upon Law, for any bill they chose to put their names too. Liberalism had won.

The long and slow collapse of liberalism is the greatest political song of our time. A movement that had begun in intelligence and optimism is fighting its last battles. Liberalism is empty of thoughts and visions. It is now merely anti-Conservatism, like the fighters in Saigon in 1975 were merely anti-Hanoi. We are in the final years, if not the final months, of third stage of this four generation political battle. This war began in the 1960s with high-profile attacks on individual initiatives and ends whens the Courts are taken.

Dissent Magazine’s Michael Walzer shares much of this analysis

In fact, ideology rules everywhere on the right, across the spectrum of issues in which right-wing intellectuals and activists take an interest (note the combination: it used to be only the left that had intellectuals and activists). Everywhere, we see radically coherent, single-causal analyses of social problems and radical proposals to deal with the problems once and for all: lower and lower taxes, privatized Social Security, tests and more tests in the public schools, torture for terrorists, war for Saddam, democracy for the Arabs. And everything will be wonderful, after the revolution.

Walzer sees clearly. And he describes what many regimes have seen: an ideological opponent. Liberalism is facing an ideological insurgency. Further, American Liberalism is not like homosexualism, which is an insurgency fighting an insurgency. It is an entrenched regime composed of corrupt (self-interested) factions

This is the first crossover: ideological certainty and zeal have migrated to the right. Of course, there are still people on the left who are absolutely sure about their political position and zealous in its defense. But they don’t set the tone; they are off on the margins, a frequent annoyance, but not a political force. Most of us on the near-left live in a complex world, which we are not sure we understand, and we move around in that world pragmatically, practicing a politics of trial and error [though of course all politicians practice trial and error tactically. — tdaxp]. We defend policies like Social Security, which have worked pretty well, and try to make them work a little better. We want more redistributive tax and welfare systems, but we are not Bolshevik egalitarians-even if our opponents are Bolshevik inegalitarians. We opposed the Iraq War but are painfully unsure about how to get out and when. National health insurance is the most radical proposal that I’ve heard from American liberals in recent years, and it’s a European commonplace.

Make that a dispirited, entrenched, and corrupt regime

So this is the second crossover: ideological uncertainty and skepticism about all-out solutions to social problems have migrated to the left. This must have something to do with 1989 and the collapse of communism-though I don’t think that the left, near or far, has even begun to come to grips with the disaster that was communism. Perhaps the second crossover is also the product of the (very incomplete) success of social democracy in Europe and New Deal liberalism here, of civil rights and feminism, even of multiculturalism. Successes of this sort don’t leave us without an agenda, but they may leave us without the kind of agenda that makes for passionate conviction and zealous endeavor. A lot of near-left energy over the last fifteen years has been spent defending past victories, whose problematic features we know only too well.

Add on to this the inflexibility of the left and maneuverability of the right. Conservatives are more likely to be horizontal thinkers, able to fight where needed, rather than vertical thinkers, able to defend only their own turf. (The comparison to France 1940, and the Panzers against the Marginot Line, is unavoidable.)

Intellectuals on the left certainly lack certainty: we no longer have a general theory, such as Marxism once was, that tells us how things are going and what ought to be done. Does that mean that we are no longer “general intellectuals” but only locally and particularly engaged-“specialists,” as Michel Foucault argued? This left intellectual writes about education, this one about city planning, this one about health care, this one about the labor market, this one about civil liberties-and all of them are policy wonks. Is that our world? Well, maybe it is ours, but it isn’t theirs. Here is the crossover again: there are definitely general intellectuals on the right. The theory of the free market isn’t a world-historical theory exactly; one might say that it is a world-ahistorical theory. But it does have extraordinary reach; it allows its believers to have an opinion about pretty much everything. In this sense, it is an imperial doctrine, like Marxism. And combined with a theory of American-led democratization (and, for many people on the right today, with a conviction of divine support), it is also an imperialist doctrine: it allows believers to have an opinion about pretty much everywhere.

Add to this the four-to-three numerical advantage conservatives have over liberals in the United States, and you see something like this

medium_size_and_organization_small.jpg
Inflexible, Dispirited, Self-Interested, the Left Defends

In the diagram, the force on the left is in trouble. It doesn’t have a coherent program — it is not an ideological network. Rather, it is a series of fiefdoms which have their own internal structure. These networklets can fight only their direct enemy on the right. Meanwhile, the right is an idelogical network with much cross-communication. Authoritative nodes communicate with their peers more, and even follower peers reach out to their fellow travelers. The network of the right fights where the battle is, while the groups on the left must wait for the battle to come to them.

When faced with a dedicated and networks Fourth Generation program, even powerful regimes can fail. When the fourth generation network is larger than the regime, the war is all but lost. As indeed, it is.

Remember that the final stage of fourth generation politics is lawfully coopting the government. In 4GPS3, the government is used to further the movement’s agenda. This has happened — America has a Conservative President and a Conservative Congress. The only branch of government that still gives liberalism regular victories is the courts, and that is the target. The battle of the courts is the last battle in the third stage of this fourth generation war.

medium_fall_of_south_vietnam_small.jpg
Having seized most of the countryside,
the 4GWarriors prepare to annihilate
the remnant of the Ancien Regime

When we hear about the battles for the courts, this must be remembered. It is not just another battle that the parties are fighting. It is the last gain from Left-Liberalism’s rise it has to defend. After this, the war is over.

This is the state of contemporary ideological politics in the United States.

The Downfall of Tina Leans (Geopolitical Fan Fiction)

What follows is an involved parody, a swaydo sequel to the pseudo-series Allawi’s Law.

TV Trailer Script

Reign of Fire: The Downfall of Tina Leans

The trailer opens with Requiem for a Dream’s overture. The Tina Leans’ character sits on a stool hunch over thinking about the events of her life. The background is dark.
Voiceovers:
Man 1: You’re a loose cannon!
Man 2: She must be stopped
Man 3: On national TV! She said that on national TV!
Tina’s voice: I will betray America

Narrator: See her life from her point of view. How a young patriot….
Image of Tina graduating from the FBI Academy
Narrator: …. went bad
Footage of Tina, as a page/intern, handing classified documents to Senator Kow on the House Waize and Means committee.

Narrator: How she meet the Kurds for the first time….
Tina meets the Kurds (played by Albanians). Together plotting on killing the President in Damascus (played by Russell Means).

Tina to Kurds: Then it’s agreed. This “peace” will be mutually bad to everyone’s business and the most popular, beloved president of all time must die.
One of the Kurds then starts to hand out guns and drugs.
Tina: No thanks. I only snort the stuff I grow in the daycare’s playroom.

Narrator: Also starring Benjamin Netanyahu as Ehud Barak
Barak: Who should we betray? The United States or Israel?
Tina: Why not both?

medium_benjamin_netanyahu.jpg

Narrator: And learn the inside story on how one brave street cop ended the national nightmare
Allawi: (Yelling at his unseen boss) Two people a week is too high of a body count anywhere, including Alexandria, Virginia!
Camera view switches to L. Paul Bremer, Allawi’s boss
Bremer: (Angier, frustration in his voice) I know Allawi! (Calms down to a whisper) I know…… But the only way to end the madness is to….
Allawi: Stop Tina Leans.

Narrator: And see the final confrontation
Tina and Allawi are in a control room. Allawi points a gun at Tina and yells

Allawi: Step away from the launch pad!

Trailer closes with Tina back on the stool in the black background room. Requiem for a Dream’s overture plays once again.
Narrator: This fall, see “Reign of Fire: The Downfall on Tina Leans” based on Tina Lean’s own book recently released, From Kurdistan to Candyland.
Trailer ends with the Tina character’s eyes staring directly into the camera.

FBI Special Agent Dr. Leans’ Reaction, while watching the TV trailer

Hey, that’s Rina Lensi, why is she on TV?

WHAT????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, I helped end the committee!

Those are Albanians!

WHAT??????????????????

I never meet him!

WE WERE FRIENDS! He held a good-bye party for me!

WHAT?????!!!???!!!???!!!???

No! That’s not what my book is about! Its about politics. Its not an autobio!