My Two Cents

Exactly WHAT Foreign Policy experience are you talking about Sen. Clinton?

2008-03-08T13:20:00.000-08:00

It's Saturday morning, I just killed my eggs and washed it down with some terrible cherry limemenade. It's early, yet somethings are already causing my blood to boil: [Note: I began this post Saturday morning if you didn't already guess. I was kinda busy]

"What things?" you ask (well....ask already!!)

....Since you insist:

I've been getting sick and tired of hearing Hillary Clinton repeatedly tout her supposed "experience" in general and her foreign policy experience in particular as some kind of reason why she is a superior candidate to Barack Obama.

But that's not what pisses me off the most. What gets me is that she has been getting a free pass from the press when it comes to this issue.

Why has nobody called her on this?

First off: She was the First Lady, not the President. She was not party to NSC meetings, and wasn't a big part of the foreign policy formulation of the Clinton Administration. It baffles me that nobody stopped to scrutinize her "experience" claims.

Well some people finally started exploring how good her claims to "experience" were. The verdict: Her claims to experience are way overblown.

Chicago Tribune

First the back-and-forth

Surrounded by military leaders in a Cabinet-style setting, Hillary Clinton on Thursday said she has "crossed the threshold" of foreign policy experience to serve as commander in chief. Supporters of rival Barack Obama fired back immediately, arguing that the former first lady's trips abroad hardly constituted a practice run for managing global crises. "She was never asked to do the heavy lifting" when meeting with foreign leaders, said Susan Rice, who was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and is now advising Obama. "She wasn't asked to move the mountain or deliver a harsh message or a veiled threat. It was all gentle prodding or constructive reinforcement. And it would not have been appropriate for her to do the heavy lifting."

And now the scrutiny of her claims:

Clinton says she is the answer, arguing that Obama's major achievement was his early opposition to the Iraq war in 2002. Indeed, Obama doesn't have much in the way of experience managing foreign crises, nor does Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, for that matter. In fact, it is rare for any president to have that kind of experience before coming into office. (snip) But while Hillary Clinton represented the U.S. on the world stage at important moments while she was first lady, there is scant evidence that she played a pivotal role in major foreign policy decisions or in managing global crises. Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.

But when those specific examples are examines closely?:

But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process. The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.

In other words: A goodwill trip...hardly the "experience" she claims it to be.

Her China Speech?

...Still, Rice questioned whether that trip amounted to the kind of preparation for a global crisis that Clinton has claimed. "How does going to Beijing and giving a speech show crisis management? There was no crisis. And there was nothing to manage," Rice said.

Experience vs. Judgement

She criticizes Obama for his lack of experience but in point of fact Senator Clinton has been a Senator only a few years longer that Senator Obama, hardly that much of a difference. They were both lawyers, community organizers and more prior to their political lives (in fact, Obama served many years in the Illinois state senate prior to running for US Senate).

Here's the thing: I don't care about experience necessarily. No position can prepare someone for the type of responsibility of being President. And in terms of foreign policy experience lets be clear:

Very few Presidents come in knowledgeable about foreign policy or experienced in dealing with international crises. Believe it or not very few get International Relations degrees, or related degrees (it's quite common that they don't actually).

As the article notes above, nobody running (Dem or Rep) really has substantial experience managing international crises. It's usually not incumbent for a president to know it all coming in, that's precisely why Presidents have expert advisers (and who one chooses as advisers then becomes important. Needless to say I like Obamas advisers much better).

What a President does need is this: To be relatively intelligent. And able to demonstrate reasonable judgment when unexpected (or expected) situations arise that require the Presidents attention.

And judging by that criteria, Barack Obama has shown a clear superiority to Clinton and all her "experience." (for what it is worth)

On one of the single most important foreign policy issues facing America today, and on the single most important foreign policy decision Senator Clinton and Barack Obama could make it is clear:

Senator Clinton DROPPED THE BALL. She made a bad choice. She showed bad judgment and/or was too much of a coward in the face of a political situation in which opposing war was unpopular that she choose to support the awful 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq. She claims it was a vote for "diplomacy", but anybody honest with themselves knew it was a vote for war...

Barack Obama on the other hand came to a different and very prescient conclusion (considering how things worked out)

From the 2002 speech that Clinton has the balls to make light of:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne...(snip)
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

And this gets to the heart of what differentiates Senator Obama from Senator Clinton:

One had MUCH better judgment and MUCH better instincts and reasoning on such a serious foreign policy decision. So much so that he correctly saw that even a successful invasion would be fraught with problems in the post-invasion.

Just in this one instance he rightfully destroys any persuasiveness that might come from her claims to superior "exprerience". Experience that I might note (and have noted), is very dubious anyways. A clear reason why I would prefer Obama to answer that red phone at 3 AM (or anytime) over Senator Clinton.

-----
Some might argue that it was politically hard to oppose it as a Senator, and Obama wasn't a senator at the time so he gets off easy.

The argument is that he would have made the same decision in her shoes.

First: That's impossible to prove.
Second: Barack Obama was running for Senate at the time. Meaning he was taking a stand against war, as a candidate for Senate, at a time in which opposition to war was dangerous for politicians much less a candidate for Senator to make. Demonstrating not only judgment, but also courage. Where was Clinton's courage?

Absent...

I don't expect a Ph.D in International Relations to run our nation...

All I want is someone who can not only prove they have the intelligence to lead, but the necessary judgment and courage to lead as well.

Senator Barack Obama has that.

Senator Clinton gives me reason to doubt her.....

Goodnight

So I Guess Ron Paul IS a Racist.....

2007-12-27T16:13:00.000-08:00

A couple days ago I gave Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt: That he was just a extremist fringe libertarian and not a racist.

Then came this (my update to the same post):

UPDATE 12/26/07: Holy crap!! I may have just spoken too soon about Ron Paul and the questions of racism that float around him.

Yersterday, on the question of whether Ron Paul was a racist or just hyper-militantly devoted to an extreme interpretation of property rights (god I hate libertarian nut-balls...) and a moron, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and concluded he was the latter.

Seems I spoke too soon:

From Ron Pauls own political newsletters back in 1991 (and more), and in his own words: (via phenry of Dailykos who links back to supporting documentation)

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

And more:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

... [I]n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

Daaaaaaaamn. I have nothing to say but...he's your candidate Ron Paul bots. Geez, and what about the African-America supporters of Ron Paul...that's just damn shameful to associate with such an ignorant racist.

Just because he manages to sound damn sensible when it comes to Iraq, Iran, and presidential power does not mean we should ignore the batshit craziness he displays on just about everything else.

Wake up Paulbots!! Wake the hell up!!

Now Ron Paul apologists are trying to spin away his past racist comments:

From Free Market News Network (sounds like a Libertarian news network...it figures):

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics.
He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Seriously!!!!???? That's his excuse?!

Lets put it together: A Newsletter he formed, that carried his name on the cover and published under his byline and he had no idea about it until afterwards?

So what if his office is 60 miles away: Lets assume it WAS written by someone else under Ron Pauls name. Lets assume he was so busy being a "libertarian politician" that he could not always come to the newsletters office.

There are faxes, UPS and more even in 1991...you mean to tell me that he didn't even bother to review (and then sign off on) a column published under his name, in his newsletter...sorry I don't buy it. He may not have had the time to manage everything but there is usually some time to sign off on something

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention.

There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.” Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows: "In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground.

He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'

He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." '

It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

Sooooo, supposedly he didn't know and was disappointed when he learned about them....right.

Sounds...not plausible. But, again, lets say for the sake of argument that he did not write them and that he did feel bad after learning about the comments.

If he really was so mad and disappointed with those comments why no retraction of the remarks? Why no apologies or explanations in subsequent editions of the newsletter? Why?

Probably because he wasn't all too offended by the words (because they were likely his), because most of his readers at the time weren't offended either, and because it wasn't such a big deal until some people started snooping around for his past statements.

This excuse is pathetic.

"The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush" (and short roundup)

2007-12-16T21:23:00.000-08:00

I came across this piece in Vanity Fair written by renowned Nobel Laureate (and I believe former World Bank or IMF President..not sure) Joseph Stiglitz where he argues that the economic and other damage wrought by this president surpass, and his stewardship of the economy is worse even than Herbert Hoover. [Herbert Hoover being the president at the start of the Great Depression]

Please. Read. This.

Here are some excerpts:

When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.

I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance...(snip)
Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush...(snip)

On the tax cuts...

But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.

The administration crows that the economy grew—by some 16 percent—during its first six years, but the growth helped mainly people who had no need of any help, and failed to help those who need plenty. A rising tide lifted all yachts. Inequality is now widening in America, and at a rate not seen in three-quarters of a century. A young male in his 30s today has an income, adjusted for inflation, that is 12 percent less than what his father was making 30 years ago. Some 5.3 million more Americans are living in poverty now than were living in poverty when Bush became president. America’s class structure may not have arrived there yet, but it’s heading in the direction of Brazil’s and Mexico’s.

He deals with the Bankruptcy and mortgage mess, Iraq, oil and gas prices, our image internationally, our messed up trade policies and more. It is a real good read although it really does bring home just how much the next few President's and Congresses will have to work just to fix the damage of this man's stewarship.

------

In a previous post ("Calm Before the Storm..") on tuesday, I noted that the US was in big trouble in the near future as it came to face some problems that are currently under the surface:

The US is in for a big shock when those groups that they are arming (al-Sahwa people) suddenly turn their guns on them, just as those just mentioned above (anti-US and AQI currently, but regrouping) also resume attacks on US soldiers and on the Shia government and people.

Matters will further get worse whenever Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr decides to end his ceasefire (and he will) and resume his attacks on Sunnis and on Americans.

No, this is not progress. This is not progress at all...

A triple wammy that will quickly end the relative (and it really is just relative) "quiet" in Iraq recently.

Number 3 on that list was Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia. He currently has declared a cease-fire, but it is obviously temporary and self-serving.

All we have to do is look back to 2004 when he last declared a ceasefire to see how that worked out.

Back then a ceasefire was called to allow time for the militia to regroup, recoup, rearm, and reorganize in a manner that will allow for greater control and loytalty to al-Sadr. Also a break to better train themselves into more effective fighters.

As many as 80 Iranian agents are working with an estimated 500 Sadr militiamen, known as the Mahdi Army, providing training and nine 57-mm Russian antiaircraft guns to add to stocks of mortars, antitank weapons, and other armaments, according to Iraqi and US intelligence reports.

"They are preparing for something, gathering weapons; people are coming in buses from other parts of Iraq," says Michael al-Zurufi, the Iraqi security adviser of Najaf Province. "The most important are the Iran- ians. The Iranian people are trying to reorganize Sadr's militia so they can fight again."

At the same time, heavily armed Sadr militiamen are waging fear tactics, kidnapping local Iraqi police and family members, occupying buildings, and arresting Iraqis deemed critical of Sadr or in violation of Islamic law, residents and officials say.
Signs that the Sadr militia is regrouping after heavy losses in April and May come even as Iraqi leaders are attempting to nudge the firebrand cleric into the political arena.

There is reason to be skeptical about the current ceasfire...and when that ends.

It'll be a disaster by itself, but it will be a bloodbath if the "al-Sahwa" Sunnis and the anti-US Sunnis join in...

-----

"Not us. We're not going" - Troop unity, and morale are suffering in Iraq. A disturbing story about one such "mutiny"

The Calm Before the Storm..

2007-12-10T22:53:00.000-08:00

So, I guess I've been lagging ALOT on the blogging lately, which is bad considering the interesting developments out there (Iran NIE, CIA destruction of videotapes showing "enhanced interrogations i.e. torture)

What I'm going to do is get rid of all the things on my computer:

So first, I'll deal with Iraq matters

Next, with that done, I want to do a roundup-type piece within the next couple days devoted exclusively to the Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that undercut the Administrations case for war. So far I have like 5 or six links related to that, although it could increase by the time I write something up.

It's a little late, but it could still prove useful to people who aren't TV news, or online news junkies like me. :)

Ok, lets begin

-------

Iraq - Fear of a Growing Sunni Militia

The al-Anbar province has seen a marked decline in violence as more an more Sunni sheiks, and former insurgent groups -- temporarily -- cooperate with the US in order to rid themselves of the Sunni foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

This temporary state of affairs, along with the decision by powerful Shia militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr to unilaterally declare a ceasefire has accounted for most of the drop in violence seen in Iraq recently.

Ignorant types, or those who see it in their political interest to say so, point to the US Surge as the reason for the improving situation, but it really is quite ridiculous.

It completely ignores the previously mentioned factors and what's more it assigns the cause for the reduction in violence to a surge of only 30,000 extra troops -- most located within the Baghdad area. Leaving us to wonder how these extra troops could have pacified regions they are not even in...you'd think someone would think to ask.

Others also like to point to the "Al-Anbar Model" and the "Al-Anbar Awakening" -- which is a reason for the reduction in violence in the Sunni region of al-Anbar -- as a positive sign for Iraq.

That is conclusion that I seriously disagreed with, as demonstrated in these two blog posts from September19th and December 3rd.

Long story short: It sacrifices long and medium turn security, for short terms gains which not only are likely to be temporary, but have yet to foster the political progress that it was supposed to. In fact, it has actually added fire to the sectarian hatred an animosity that fuels the Iraqi civil war, and empowered a Sunni militia in Anbar that threatens the stability and power of the Shia-dominated Iraqi Central government in Baghdad, thus undercutting the goal of fostering Iraqi unity.

And the Shia's in the central government are definitely worried about the growing Sunni might that the US is helping to foster in al-Anbar as part of it "al-Anbar" model.

The American campaign to turn Sunni Muslims against Islamic extremists is growing so quickly that Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders fear that it's out of control and threatens to create a potent armed force that will turn against the government one day...

But that hasn't calmed mounting concerns among aides to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who charge that some of the groups include "terrorists" who attack Shiite residents in their neighborhoods. Some of the new "concerned citizens" are occupying houses that terrified Shiite families abandoned, they said.
It also hasn't quieted criticism that the program is trading long-term Iraqi stability for short-term security gains.
"There is a danger here that we are going to have armed all three sides: the Kurds in the north, the Shiite and now the Sunni militias," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who's now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington, D.C.

In my view they have a legitimate concern. Iraqi Sunnis are highly suspicious of the central government who they see dominated and controlled by Iraq's Shias. They see the Iraqi central government as under the grip of the Shias, who stubbornly refuse to deal with Iraqi Sunnis and give them more real political power and influence in the central government.

The Shia's certainly have a troubled history of subjugation by the minority Sunnis which is the root of all the mistrust of giving Sunnis power, but I see little way to resolve the situation unless the Shia's relax some of their grip on power in the central government. Jeez, I went on an unrelated tangent there...

Anyways, as I was saying, the Shia-dominated central government is fearful of the rising strenght and organization of the Sunni militias that the US is helping to foster.

But the US and the central government have addition problems:

We already know that the Sunni groups currently working with the US to rid AQI from Anbar are only doing so on a temporary basis -- vowing to resume fighting Americans when the job is done --

Further evidence of the shortsightedness of the "Anbar Model" is provided in the following news items which explains how Sunni insurgent groups have deliberately scaled back attacks on US troops in order to regroup and retrain for when the extra troops finally leave Baghdad.

Iraq's main Sunni-led resistance groups have scaled back their attacks on US forces in Baghdad and parts of Anbar province in a deliberate strategy aimed at regrouping, retraining, and waiting out George Bush's "surge", a key insurgent leader has told the Guardian.
US officials recently reported a 55% drop in attacks across Iraq. One explanation they give is the presence of 30,000 extra US troops deployed this summer. The other is the decision by dozens of Sunni tribal leaders to accept money and weapons from the Americans in return for confronting al-Qaida militants who attack civilians. They call their movement al-Sahwa (the Awakening).
The resistance groups are another factor in the complex equation in Iraq's Sunni areas. "We oppose al-Qaida as well as al-Sahwa," the director of the political department of the 1920 Revolution Brigades told the Guardian in Damascus in a rare interview with a western reporter.

The US is in for a big shock when those groups that they are arming (al-Sahawa people) suddenly turn their guns on them, just as those just mentioned above (anti-US and AQI currently, but regrouping) also resume attacks on US soldiers and on the Shia government and people.

Matters will further get worse whenever Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr decides to end his ceasefire (and he will) and resume his attacks on Sunnis and on Americans.

No, this is not progress. This is not progress at all...

------

Roundup

South America launches new bank to rival the International Monetary Fund - Interesting move by the various South American nations. Certainly the IMF and its strict loan conditions have caused problems in the borrower countries often enough...I can see where the desire for an alternative comes from. Not exactly my cup of tea...I'd sure love to hear what my old International Political Economy professor would have to say on this.

Tom Tancredo Hires Illegal Laborers to Renovate His Mansion - Rabid anti-immigrant personality Tom Tancredo has problems practicing what he preaches. Smell that hypocrisy...

That's all for tonight. I'll get on that Iran NIE post sometime in the next couple days.

Goodnight.

There are Dangers to Further Stoking Ethnic Hatred in Iraq

2007-12-03T20:56:00.000-08:00

A November 30, 2007 post in Wired details the ongoing US efforts to reduce violence in Sunni parts of Iraq.

Psychological operations specialist Sgt. Joe Colabuno spent a year-and-a-half helping convince the Sunni residents of Fallujah to turn against local extremists by appealing to citizens' sense of civic pride, pumping up their love of the national soccer team, citing the Koran, and provoking jihadists to overreact. Colabuno also appealed to the Sunnis hatred and fear of Shi'ites, and of Shi'ite Iran.
"For 7 or 8 months," Colabuno tells me, "all we hear about is 'Iran is doing all [of the attacks], Iran is behind everything.' There was frustration from them [Fallujah's locals] because we wouldn't 'admit it.' Like maybe the U.S. was conspiring with Iran."

"We'd stress in our SITREPS [situation reports] that in order to get these people on our side, we've got to play into their fears abut Iran," he adds.

Then, in January, "the White House suddenly got involved," talking tough about how Tehran was stoking instability in Iraq. "That overnight changed the attitudes of the people towards us. They took it as almost an apology," he adds.

In local newspaper articles, in radio and loudspeaker broadcasts -- and in talks on the street -- Colabuno started playing up "operations against Shi'a militia." He played up how the U.S. troop "surge" was silencing Shi'a leader Moktada "al-Sadr's yipping and yapping."

The tactics seems to follow quite nicely from previous "successes" that the US had with its 'Al-Anbar Model.' This model sought to reduce the power of the Sunni extremist group Al-Qaeda in Iraq -- made up mainly of foreign fighters -- by working with/bribing/making deals with/etc Sunni sheiks and (formerly insurgent groups) so that they crack down on AQI.

As I remarked at the time (September): It was a dangerous move

I gave several reasons why such a strategy was potentially very dangerous:

First, that the Anbar Model was arming former enemies who promise to return to fighting us:

We are arming groups (or at the very least giving them money that they use to buy arms) that promise to turn those guns on us once they finish with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

You see, the problem with enemy-of-my-enemy marriages of conveniences is that they are good until, well...it's no longer convenient. The Sunni insurgency already has the American's number. They are well seasoned in how to attack American's. But now they want to get rid of AQI and know the US will provide them the arms and funding to do so.

But these groups have promised [in public no less] to resume attacks on US soldiers once they have finished dealing a sufficient blow on AQI.

Second, and most relevant for today's post, was that such a strategy only poured more gasoline on the already raging Iraqi civil war by increasing the ethnic hatred that's feeding it. And that this undercuts the goal of Iraqi unity and stability.

It feeds the specter of full-scale civil war by arming and funding different and competing sides in a civil and ethnic conflict.

The Sunnis in Anbar, or anywhere in Iraq, do not trust or want the Shia-dominated [and US supported] government in Baghdad. They want nothing to do with it.

By funding and arming the Sunni insurgent groups in al-Anbar Province they are effectively funding and arming a rival to the government in Baghdad. The US has propped up and helped the Government in Baghdad, and now is undercutting it by funding and empowering a rival in Anbar province. In essence fueling multiple sides in any civil war. That is counter productive towards the goal of Iraqi unity, and makes it less likely that the central government can exercise any control over all of Iraq outside Shia regions, and even that might not be true (I'll explain in the Roundup). The US is ensuring that Iraq will break into a Sunni region, a Kurdish region in the north, and Shia region in the center and south...and these groups will fight it out in full-scale bloodbath once the US leaves. We should NOT make the bloodbath any worse than its going to be.

What the US is doing in the Wired piece at the top follows along the same lines - in fact it is in fact a lot stupider because in this case the US occupation forces are specifically, directly, and knowingly trying to rally Sunnis (who are a minority in Iraq) behind the US by inciting hatred and mistrust of Iraqi Shiites and of Iran (who is mainly Shia).

Colabuno also appealed to the Sunnis hatred and fear of Shi'ites, and of Shi'ite Iran [From the Wired link at the top of this post - Oscar]

In effect, the US is trying to decrease violence and increase stability in Iraq by, yep...inciting further ethnic hatred, arming and empowering a rival to the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad.

This, along with the rest of the "Anbar Model" have the Shia's dominating the Iraqi central government very worried: (and with good reason)

The American campaign to turn Sunni Muslims against Islamic extremists is growing so quickly that Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders fear that it's out of control and threatens to create a potent armed force that will turn against the government one day.
The United States, which credits much of the drop in violence to the campaign, is enrolling hundreds of people daily in "concerned local citizens" groups. More than 5,000 have been sworn in in the last eight days, for a total of 77,542 as of Tuesday. As many as 10 groups were created in the past week, bringing the total number to 192, according to the American military....(snip)

Despite US efforts to reassure them that they can keep those Sunnis from taking up arms against the Shia government, the Iraqi government is not too convinced (again, it has good reason to be scared)

But that hasn't calmed mounting concerns among aides to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who charge that some of the groups include "terrorists" who attack Shiite residents in their neighborhoods. Some of the new "concerned citizens" are occupying houses that terrified Shiite families abandoned, they said.
It also hasn't quieted criticism that the program is trading long-term Iraqi stability for short-term security gains.
"There is a danger here that we are going to have armed all three sides: the Kurds in the north, the Shiite and now the Sunni militias," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who's now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington, D.C.

I though this was all foolish back in September...but it is no less foolish today.

-----

The United States' current strategy seeks gains in short term security (and there have been some recently if you watch the news), at the price of pouring gasoline on a raging civil and ethnic conflict and making Iraq less stable and more violent in the medium and long term.

In reference to the Anbar Model I asked in my September blog post: "But the question is: Is this policy good for Iraq? Is this progress?" to which I answered in the negative.

Noah Shactman of the Wired post asked a similar question on Sept. 30 regarding the current strategy of rallying Sunnis:

The successes of the American counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq have, so far, been hyperlocal: local watchmen, patrolling their mini-neighborhoods; local tribal and political leaders, making deals with American commanders. And in that context, playing on fears on Shi'ite boogeymen in Sunni regions makes a ton of sense.

The question, though, is what are the national consequences of this local strategy. How can the U.S. encourage country-wide reconciliation -- while riding a wave of sectarian hate?

Exactly.

It will eventually come back to haunt the US, punishing it and Iraq, for its short-sightedness.

-------

PS: I'll have a short roundup added to this post tomorrow as an Update. I'm a little tired and would rather watch TV or screw around on Myspace than keep going...yeah, I know. Laaaazy. lol.

Goodnight.

New Yorkers Paying for Giuliani's Booty Calls?

2007-11-28T20:09:00.000-08:00

Or as Josh Marshall (of TPM) calls it "Government Funded Shagging."

[This is the missing "miscellaneous" items that I didn't blog about in yesterday's post plus the juicy new Rudy Giuliani stuff.]

ooooo this is very juicy stuff, very juicy stuff that combines both scandalous sex (he was visiting a mistress...you know, cheating on his wife...again) and ripping off the tax payers.

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”

Mmmm, delicious. You know, it is well known that this guy is a serial womanizer and that he's never been able to remain faithful to any woman so it's not as if this is a surprise. But this does reinforce that image and provides a good story easy for media dissemination that will continually highlight such personal flaws.

Now, we all have personal flaws (ask Bill Clinton) so I don't think these things necessarily should disqualify one from office but there is more to this than simple infidelity:

1) He is running for the Republican nomination and he is trying to court the votes of conservatives including social conservatives. When you run a party so freakin high and mighty and "morality" based you would think that, I don't know...stuff like this matters.

2) It's not just infidelity, it is corruption, abuse of power, and a scandal that shows how Rudy has taken the taxpayers of New York for their money, all so he could get him some tail. Add this with the stench of corruption that follows him due to his (former) best buddy Bernie Kerik -- who ALSO used taxpayer money to get him some sex -- and there is a perfect narrative that Democrats and other Republican candidates can use to pummel Giuliani with.

I hope this seriously undermines his campaing because I DO NOT LIKE GIULIANI!! Look at my profile, click the video, watch it....you'll understand why I'm so afraid that a man like this could even possibly be the next President of the United States.

------

FBI: Widely Reported Threat to Fort Huachuca unfounded

Just read, the original scare was like a Republicans wet dream..

A plot by dozens of foreign terrorists who purportedly planned to attack Fort Huachuca with rocket propelled grenades and mines has proved unfounded, an FBI spokesman said Monday.

The threat, detailed by a local television station and The Washington Times [had to be..] after information was recently leaked to them, involved Iraqi and Afghan terrorists working with a Mexican drug cartel to smuggle themselves and weapons across the U.S. border.

It's got it all. Iraqis, Afghans, terrorist attacks at home, plus they even managed to add in Mexicans kingpins and smuggling things across the border!! It's a damn wingnuts wetdream. It's the kind of headlines that they dream about. The kind of headline that would produce instant wood at a very embarrassing moment that one time in gym class when I was in front of everyone doing sit up...*cough* sorry...anyways...

Seriously though, all that's missing from the story is to add that the terrorists were also gay and made man-love with the Mexicans prior to the operation, while a group of black thugs performed an abortion and then had sex before marriage.

And there was a midget...yeah, I bet you didn't know they hated midgets.

--------

UN Human Development Report: World Must Fix Climate in 10 years

Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation, climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible ecological catastrophes, a U.N. report said on Tuesday.

The U.N. Human Development Report issued one of the strongest warnings yet of the lasting impact of climate change on living standards and a strong call for urgent collective action. "We could be on the verge of seeing human development reverse for the first time in 30 years," Kevin Watkins, lead author of the report, told Reuters.

The report, presented in Brasilia on Tuesday, sets targets and a road map to reduce carbon emissions before a U.N. climate summit next month in Bali, Indonesia. Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere help trap heat and lead to global warming.

"The message for Bali is the world cannot afford to wait. It has less than a decade to change course," said Watkins, a senior research fellow at Britain's Oxford University. Dangerous climate change will be unavoidable if in the next 15 years emissions follow the same trend as the past 15 years, the report said.

To avoid catastrophic impact, the rise in global temperature must be limited to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). But carbon emissions mostly from cars and power plants are twice the level needed to meet that target, the U.N. authors said.

Climate change threatens to condemn millions of people to poverty, the UNDP said. Climate disasters between 2000 and 2004 affected 262 million people, 98 percent of them in the developing world. The poor are often forced to sell productive assets or save on food, health, and education, creating "life-long cycles of disadvantage."

HOMES, FOOD, WATER IMPERILED

A temperature rise of between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 and 4 degrees Celsius) would displace 340 million people through flooding, droughts would diminish farm output, and retreating glaciers would cut off drinking water from as many as 1.8 billion people, the report said.

-------

Evidence for a Parallel Universe? - I don't to even understand most of the stuff here, but I thought it might be interesting to someone. Hey does anyone remember that show 'Sliders'? I used to watch that show all the time!!

Well that it for tonight. I have a lot of thinking to do (decisions) and I've put off thinking about it long enough. But I needed everything off my plate first so here I am two days in a row.

Goodnight

The Return of the Roundup

2007-11-27T19:04:00.000-08:00

[I'm not saying the blogging hiatus is done for sure....but suddenly I had the energy to do a regular post, as opposed to the lazy stuff I've been doing the last couple post (for the MySpace blog at least).

In good news, I finally did what I should have done long ago: I uninstalled and then re-installed Firefox. God, I LOVE Firefox!! Internet Explorer is horrible. I mean, how is it that I updated to a newer version yesterday and its actually slower, and more prone to crash and lose all tabs than the older version? Maybe its no coincidence that today is the day I chose to start blogging again.]

[End of Post Update: I decided against adding a Miscellaneous section, opting to add those in a latter post, or perhaps in a stand alone post]

For todays roundup I have a few things in store:

- The Middle East Peace Summit in Annapolis
- Immigration and Racism
- Miscellaneous (but interesting stuff)

----------

The Middle East Peace Summit in Annapolis

Recently Israel and the Palestinians (and by that I mean only the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority...more on that in the next story) have come together, along with with the US and representatives of various Arab governments in an international summit to revive the stalled Peace Process. (AFP)

Israel and the Palestinians opened a major international conference here Tuesday with a pledge to immediately resume talks frozen for seven years and seek a deal by the end of 2008.

Flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, US President George W. Bush read out a joint statement agreed just moments before the meeting began in Annapolis, Maryland.

"We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008," the statement said.

Abbas said the conference and international climate presented an exceptional opportunity for peace that would "not repeat itself," while Olmert vowed Israel was prepared to make a "painful compromise" to achieve peace.

Launching the biggest initiative of his presidency to revive the Middle East Peace process, Bush, who is nearing the end of his eight-year term, said the time was now ripe for an end to the six-decade conflict.

"In light of recent developments, some have suggested that now is not the right time to pursue peace. I disagree," Bush told delegates from more than 50 countries and organizations.

"I believe that now is precisely the right time to begin these negotiations -- for a number of reasons," he insisted, citing a new willingness among the leaders of both sides, and global support for fresh negotiations.

Also he added "the time is right because a battle is underway for the future of the Middle East -- and we must not cede victory to the extremists."

Now, I'm not sure how this international summit will end, but I have nothing but all the best wishes that President Bush (and I have no choice but place my faith in him here...), the Israelis, Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab countries can really come together and hammer a peace deal.

Such a deal would be such a great achievement and development in the Middle East (and for perceptions of the US in the Middle East).

In an administration that has failed in everything, and deservedly wrought the shame and criticism of the whole world, I seriously would not mind one bit if he partially saved his legacy and pulled out something good with this summit...in fact I would be ecstatic for a true deal.

With that said, it should never be forgotten that the deterioration of Israel/Palestinian relations was enabled in no small part by the "green-light" President Bush gave at the beginning of his administration for Israel to "get tough" with the Palestinians. Well, they certainly did, and violence ensued for quite a while, making coming together for negotiations again extremely unlikely until now.

But there are some concerns with the conference. For one neither Hamas will attend, nor will Iran attend.

Hamas has denounced the conference and thousand of Hamas supporters waving the group's green flag demonstrated in Gaza City Tuesday to reject the US-championed conference.

Why is this a problem? Well, you may remember a while back that there was a mini-Palestinian civil war between Islam-oriented Hamas and the secular-oriented Fatah, the end result being the forceful expulsion of Fatah from the Gaza Strip.

In other words, the Palestinians and their lands are divided. There is no one person controlling or purporting to speak for all Palestinians. And that complicates the international summit because, without the presence of Hamas (which I doubt the US would accept anyways) at the summit, any agreement entered into by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) would not cover or bind the other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. And that is problematic.

And Iran, as one of the big backers of Hamas, and a significant (and ever increasing) power in the region, really should be at that conference as well. Again, I doubt the US would let them in...they would probably think it was rewarding Iran with legitimacy or something...

Actually, I might have jumped the gun a bit since the next link in the roundup deals with the reactions of many foreign policy heavy-weights: Hamas and Iran should be involved in the Summit

Via Steve Clemons of TPMuckracker:

This tidbit just appeared in Robin Wright's recent reporting on the Annapolis Summit in an article titled "Iran: The Uninvited Wildcard in Mideast Talks":

Iran will still have leverage in the event of peace, Arab officials concede. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said yesterday that any peace agreement would eventually have to include Hamas, since it controls Gaza and half the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the two major Palestinian parties -- Hamas and Fatah, which controls the West Bank -- would need to join a national unity government, he said.

An agreement signed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders would need ratification by their respective parliaments, and Hamas still controls the Palestinian parliament.

"Unless you bring Hamas in tune with what is happening on the peace side, you are really not fulfilling a basic requirement," Faisal said. "One man cannot make peace; not even half a people can make peace," he told a roundtable of U.S. journalists. "There has to be consensus about peace among the Palestinians for this to go smoothly."

I just thought it worth noting that people ranging from former Secretary of State Colin Powell to former New Jersey Governor and Bush administration cabinet member Christine Todd Whitman (who headed the National Democratic Institute election monitoring mission of the 2005 Palestinian elections) to former US Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki to former National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft to former Senators Nancy Kassebaum Baker, Gary Hart, Lincoln Chafee, Larry Pressler, Birch Bayh and many others from both sides of the aisle agree with the Saudi Foreign Minister.

And that is why it is so important to have Iran at the table: The leverage they have with Hamas, and the pressure only they could put on Hamas could make a deal palatable to both sides that much more likely. Of course this all assumes that Iran would be invited...

-------

Immigration and Racism

Pat Buchanan is back, and he's coming out with a new book. For those who don't know Pat Buchanan all too well he can properly be described as a big time nativist on immigration, and I would argue...well, he's kinda racist. Let's read what he had to say on Sean Hannity's show.

Buchanan: "America [is] committing suicide" while "Asians, Africans, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate"

MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan appeared on the November 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes to discuss his new book, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, And Greed Are Tearing America Apart (Thomas Dunne Books, November 2007), in which he writes that America is "on a path to national suicide" and later asks: "How is America committing suicide?" answering: "Every way a nation can." He proceeds to claim that "[t]he American majority is not reproducing itself. ... Forty-five million of its young have been destroyed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see."

On Hannity & Colmes, Buchanan asserted: "You've got a wholesale invasion, the greatest invasion in human history, coming across your southern border, changing the composition and character of your country. You've got the melting pot that once welded us all together, which has broken down." Co-host Sean Hannity went on to ask him: "Do you really believe that America, the country we all love as we know it, is in jeopardy of existing?" Buchanan responded: "I think America may exist, but I'll tell you this: I do believe we're going to lose the American Southwest. I think it is almost inevitable." He continued: "If we do not put a fence on that border ...you're going to have 100 million Hispanics in the country, most of them new immigrants from Mexico, which believes that belongs to them.

There are several things here which set me off.

First is this whole nutball conspiracy that grips the imaginations of Republicans, conservatives, and anti-immigrant people that Mexicans coming into the US want to bring the Southwest US back to Mexico and they are achieving this by demographics first, and when there are soooo many Mexicans you can't go 2 steps, they suddenly secede back to Mexico....

Yeah, I KNOW that sounds crazy!!! But these people live in real fear of such a ridiculous notion...as if that would ever happen!!

That's just crazy, but it is the next thing which really rubs me the wrong way about these people.

Read what he says again: The implicit assumption, the implicit argument that Buchanan and people like him make are that anybody that is not from the white-majority (even US citizens by birth like myself who happens to be Mexican-descended) is not really American like white people are the "real Americans."

"as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see."

And this is what makes some of these nativists racist: They believe, I mean it goes without saying for them, that only Americans of the "majority" (i.e. White) are true Americans. What it also means is that Buchanan and his type would never consider me, my family, nor most of my friends as "real Americans." Because my parents where both from Mexico, am I not an American like all others?

And that really does piss me off. The nerve of this jackass to tell us who is the real American and who isn't!!

And if you think about it, it's so amazingly ridiculous: Unlike many countries, being American has never been about any particular race or ethnicity. It is the very nature of this nation that it has served as a place where many peoples, races, colors, and religions have come together, all at once different, and at the same time all American.

Because being American is not about any race, it is about what binds all these people of such diverse backgrounds as one people: It is not any one religion, or race, but a shared abstract identity of being American.

Our shared American history, our shared perception as being American, and our shared veneration of our "civic-religion" that is our knowledge, respect, and veneration for The American System as it is embodied in the system passed down to us from the Founders in the United States Constitution.

This is not Japan, where ethnicity and nationality are more closely involved in what goes into definining what "being Japanese" means. In America, it is more abstract...and in that way it has the potential to be much more inclusive. One of the reasons, I suspect, that this nation has always benefited and gained from every wave of immigration it has seen, and not suffered so much as in many European nations:

Here it doesn't matter where you come, or where your parents came from because any and all people can become Americans.

And they are all "real" American, no matter what people like Buchanan have to say.

Roundup: Beware Guiliani, Iraq & Turkey, Problems For Iran, and more!!

2007-10-28T18:27:00.000-07:00

It's been a while but the roundup should be ok. I'm tired and I'm not sure why now...just assumed it was lack of food plus the drinking in the previous few days, but today I'm still sleepy even when I just wake up. Even took a big nap in the afternoon and still woke up tired (though not as much). Weird, huh? So, please excuse any fogginess in though, it probably won't be 100%. j/k (well, mostly)

Anyways, the roundup will follow in a similar fashion to previous ones. If your not sure what that is, see any other post (except in the Myspace blog...look down past the previous two in that case). This will be organized in the following way (in order)

- Bush's Failed Foreign Policy
- Beware a Rudy Giuliani Presidency
- Turkey's Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq
- Iraq
- Iran
- Threats of Torture and Government Censorship

------

Bush's Failed Foreign Policy

There is one piece, written by noted Middle East scholar and expert Juan Cole that I believe everyone should read. It is the perfect preamble, it is the perfect piece to read in order to give everyone here the proper context in which to read all the other links that follow this, especially the Rudy Guiliani stuff. This is a must read and it's only two pages long...seriously go read it now!! Well, OK the link is below.

Juan Cole -- The Collapse of Bush's Foreign Policy -- Now read it all. But here are some interesting parts:

The Bush administration once imagined that its presence in Afghanistan and Iraq would be anchored by friendly neighbors, Turkey to the west and Pakistan to the east. Last week, as the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to deteriorate, the anchors themselves also came loose.
On Sunday, just days after the Turkish Parliament authorized an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish guerrillas ambushed and killed 17 Turkish soldiers inside Turkey. In Karachi, Pakistan, a massive bomb nearly killed U.S.-backed Benazir Bhutto, who was supposed to help stabilize the country. The Bush administration's entire Middle East policy is coming undone -- if it even has a policy left, other than just sticking its fingers in the multiple, and multiplying, holes in the dike. (snip)...

Cole's conclusion puts it all together nicely. Explaining the complete failure and crumpling of Bush's foreign policy:

Along with the failed state in Iraq, which has neglected to use any decrease in violence temporarily provided by the recent U.S. troop escalation to effect political reconciliation, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan raises the specter of a collapse of both of Bush's major state-building projects. The turmoil in Turkey and Pakistan damages U.S. relations with two allies that are key to shoring up the countries under American occupation.

After Sept. 11, when the Bush administration launched its global "war on terror," the United States enjoyed some clear assets in fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network. In the Middle East, the United States had the support of secular Turkey, a NATO member. The long relationship of the powerful Pakistani military with that of the United States enabled Bush to turn the military dictator Musharraf against the Taliban, which Pakistan had earlier sponsored. Shiite Iran announced that it would provide help to the United States in its war on the hyper-Sunni Taliban regime. Baathist Syria and Iraq, secular Arab nationalist regimes, were potential bulwarks against Sunni radicalism in the Levant.

Like a drunken millionaire gambling away a fortune at a Las Vegas casino, the Bush administration squandered all the assets it began with by invading Iraq and unleashing chaos in the Gulf. The secular Baath Party in Iraq was replaced by Shiite fundamentalists, Sunni Salafi fundamentalists and Kurdish separatists. The pressure the Bush administration put on the Pakistani military government to combat Muslim militants in that country weakened the legitimacy of Musharraf, whom the Pakistani public increasingly viewed as an oppressive American puppet. Iraqi Kurdistan's willingness to give safe haven to the PKK alienated Turkey from both the new Iraqi government and its American patrons. Search-and-destroy missions in Afghanistan have predictably turned increasing numbers of Pushtun villagers against the United States, NATO and Karzai. The thunder of the bomb in Karachi and the Turkish shells in Iraqi Kurdistan may well be the sound of Bush losing his "war on terror."

I have nothing to add to this brilliant piece by Professor Cole.

I mentioned that the above piece is important in that it helps properly view all of the links that follow, and I mean it.

-----

Beware a Rudy Guiliani Presidency

Why is the collapse and utter failure of Bush foreign policy so important to note when it comes to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani? Quite simply, it is because when it comes to matters of foreign policy and terrorism policy Guiliani is nearly identical or worse than President Bush on the very same issues.

I've had a video on my profile of Giuliani taking on neoconservative foreign policy advisors (some too crazy even for the White House) (here the link from TPMTV), a very important thing to note, especially for a potential president with very little foreign policy experience and thus increasingly reliant on his advisors.

What is no doubt a little disconcerting about Giuliani to those who follow politics (except for Republicans of course!) is how eerily similar to President Bush he is

Rudy Giuliani, to quote a Democratic rival, would be like President Bush on steroids in the way he would go about protecting the U.S. from terrorists. In reality, Giuliani doesn't seem very different from Bush on the issue.
The former New York mayor says the government shouldn't be shy about eavesdropping on citizens. He is prepared to use military force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and root out terrorists in Pakistan. And he opposes a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, a Giuliani friend and adviser on homeland security issues, said in an interview: "I would say they're very much joined at the hip on these policies, and particularly the mind-set and commitment of both the president and Mayor Giuliani to stay on offense."

And given how "well" these policies have worked out for us the past 7 years, this observation is a very serious cause for concern. Do we really want another 7 years of Bush, or worse, "Bush on steroids" as Democrat John Edwards opined? Do we really want more Guantanamo's, more Abu Ghraibs, an indefinite occupation of Iraq, a new war in Iran and possibly Syria...do we really want someone who is so like our current President? A candidate for President so blinded that he would undermine our very Constitution (in much the same ways as our current President) and all that makes America America in order to "protect you."

In such a way as to give people the false dichotomy and choice that freedom MUST be sacrificed for security. That is a false choice: While some risk is always inherent in any system (and thats the price we pay) with many freedoms, our protection is always achievable within the bounds of our rule of law.

How is it that America lived through the most dangerous times; the Revolution, the War of 1812, fought off one of the most dangerous foes to freedom (fascism) during World War II, and faced off against an enemy with the capability of annihilate us in a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War without having to sacrifice our core American ideals, and our core Constitutional order?

The terrorist do not pose anywhere near the same level of existential threat as earlier ones yet some overreact to it and propose policies unthinkable during yet worse threats!! Why!?

It brings to mind a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

Anyways lets get on with this Rudy section...I need to further detail the crazy.

More on and his aggressive foreign policy

Bad huh? But it gets worse. Mr. Giuliani asks to have a briefing from Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz on the war....World War IV.

That is NOT a typo

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Check out what nattering nabob of neoconservativism Norman Podhoretz, a top foreign policy adviser to Rudy, has just confided to The New York Observer about a recent private conversation he had with the candidate:

Norman Podhoretz believes that America needs to go to war soon with Iran. As far as he knows, Rudy Giuliani thinks the same thing.
“I was asked to come in and give him a briefing on the war, World War IV,” said Mr. Podhoretz, a founding father of neoconservatism and leading foreign policy adviser to Mr. Giuliani. “As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how he sees the war and how I see it.”

So what does Podhoretz have to say about our Middle East policy?

America should be working to overthrow governments in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt and “every one of the despotic regimes in that region, by force if necessary and by nonmilitary means if possible,” he said. “They are fronts of the war. You can’t do everything at once. And to have toppled two of those regimes in five years or six years is I think a major achievement. And maybe George Bush won’t be able to carry it further, but I think he will. It may have just been given to him to start act one of the five-act play.”

Giuliani is surrounding himself...personally asking for advice and briefings, from a freakin' maniac!! Seriously, if Giuliani somehow wins the presidency (I doubt he will) than I will literally crap my pants in terror...seriously. Now, I don't know if it's possible to actually crap yourself in disgust as well, but I'm sure there will be some disgust mixed with that terror. Not sure how it works but I sure I'll manage it somehow.

But enough about my bowels, lets move on to Northern Iraq

---------

Turkey's Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq

Iraqi govt and US rhetoric against PKK militants have stepped up in recent days. Promises by Iraq's central government and the regional government to promise to shut down PKK offices have been met with skepticism and doubt. Likely because previous promises only led to the re-opening of such offices the very next day in another location.

Turkey sees Iraqi Kurdish authorities as very lax on stopping Kurds in their territories and lax on border enforcement

I saw an interview either yesterday morning or this morning with the Turkish ambassador to the United States and he more or less expressed that these assurances are not enough to satisfy Turkey or nearly enough to stop their drive to invade northern Iraq...they want more, and I'm not sure there are practical things the US or Iraqi forces can do that will satisfy the Turks.

This pressure seems to be getting to the US though because it recently has been reported that President Bush has offered to bomb PKK positions in Iraq

No doubt stemming from the desire not to move troops into Kurdish regions and out of other regions. I think he sees this as a way to thread the needle and satisfy Turkish rage, while not pissing of Kurds who would likely object to seeing US soldiers in their territory.

I'm honestly not sure if this will do, but it's actually possible that this could satisfy the Turks. The article offers up other alternatives: US forces (not gonna happen), or convincing the Kurdish regional government to use their security forces (Peshmerga ) to surround PKK camps and prevent them from moving beyond their mountain camps.

I'm not sure how likely it is, but the threat of invasion may just be enough of a fear that it provokes the normally lax Kurds to turn on fellow Kurds (Turkish Kurds).

Then again, this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...no doubt it has the same effect on Turkish observers. Iraqis aren't exactly cracking down like they say they would.

Despite Turkey’s demand that the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq clamp down on the PKK, there was no sign of any action against them.
On our way to the mountain, every checkpoint manned by the Iraqi army waved us through, and cheerfully provided directions on how to get to guerrilla positions.
Nor have the supply lines been cut. Several four-wheel-drive vehicles steered by toothless old men crawled along the tracks ahead of us, piled high with sackfuls of food.

If this is the result of future Iraqi assurances, than a Turkish invasion is much more likely to occur.

--------

Iraq

"I Don't Think This Place IS Worth Another Soldiers' Life" - (Washington Post)

The subheading says it all: "After 14 months in a Baghdad district torn by mounting sectarian violence, members of one U.S. unit are tired, bitter and skeptical."

Some troops just aren't seeing the point of 'being a bouncer between two brawling customers'. An interesting read.

10 anti-al-Qaeda sheiks are kidnapped - (CBS news) Pronouncements of Al-Qaeda's demise aside, this goes to show that AQI should not be counted out or written off just yet if they can still pull something like this off. Although in actuality AQI is not the most dangerous actor in Iraq, even among the Sunnis and never was.

--------

Iran

Khamenei vs. Ahmadinejad - There's some interesting internal Iranian political games being played which makes for intriguing reading. "Khamenei" of course refers to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who is considered more of the true power in Iran than Iranian President Ahmadinedjad (or any person who holds the title of President in Iran).

But with the firing, which Larijani learned through news reports rather than directly, Ahmadinejad is challenging Khamenei's authority over Iranian state matters. Ahmadinejad knows that Larijani is an agent of those who actually want to resolve Iran's nuclear situation in a constructive way while Ahmadinejad benefits from the crisis and tension with the US and Europe...(snip)
There has been fragile but real deal making going on -- and it is progress on this front that Larijani wanted to have the government announce -- but Ahmadinejad refused.

More on this soap opera later -- but the big story here is that Ahmadinejad is challenging Khamenei directly and openly with Ali Larijani's firing. It will be interesting to see if Khamenei turns the other cheek or further undermines the "Dick Cheney of Iran" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I'll definitely need to follow this story

-------

Threats of Torture and Government Censorship

I have to concur with the sentiment expressed by the author: Holy Shit!!

Basically, the FBI coerced an innocent man into confessing by threatening his family with torture, eventually the man's innocence became clear and an appeals court ruled in his favor, but the opinion was swiftly pulled off the web. Then up came a new version:

A new version that conceals and censors the fact that...you know...the guy was coerced into confessing using threats of torture against his familiy.

People tell you anything you want to hear under circumstances like that, as well as under actual physical and psychological torture too. That's why as a practice (which doesn't touch how horribly immoral and wrong it is), torture and even rough tactics as threatening relatives should not be practiced.

Anything we learn is highly suspect. In worst-case scenarios we may base important decisions and policy, decisions with large-scale implications, on the "evidence" gathered from desperate people who just want to protect their family, or just want the pain to stop. And that would be a disaster.

-----

Good night folks, that's all for tonight.

The Revenge of the Link Dump - Another Political Roundup

2007-10-22T20:57:00.000-07:00

There were so many articles left after yesterdays post, and new ones from today, that I decided to do today's post in a similar "link dump" roundup style. In other words, many links...easy on the analysis for most of them (well a little more than yesterdays).

Once again I've divided the post in groups for easy browsing: (in order)

- Iraq
- Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey
- Iran
- Oil and the Rising Threat of Conflicts Over It

------

Iraq

Recent violence statistics in Iraq have shown some decrease, although it appears to be more of a decrease in one area and the beginnings of an upswing in others.

The Groups News Blog does its homework and compiles its stats and finds that large increases in violence in Baghdad are covered over by the large reductions in the al-Anbar region and some southern regions where US troops are beginning to leave from.

Interesting stats although they make conclusions based on these statistics that I don't think I can really agree with:

No, what we are seeing here is a shell game. The violence is not dropping. Its ending. It's ending wherever we withdraw from and spiking were we are digging in. It only appears to drop because violence in Al Anbar, Basra, Najaf, Karbala, Wasit, Dhiqar, etc, etc, has ended. This drop obscures the spike in Baghdad....(snip)

This information shows a trend up in the Baghdad region and shows that Iraq does not devolve into civil war when the US pulls out. Does not let al Qaeda take over in their absence. In fact the complete opposite, the local security forces quickly run to ground AQI and end them. It seems once the US forces leave the area the score settling and inter-tribal violence ends. Life seems cheap with tanks and machine guns on every corner. Remove those visual and physical reminders and people work out their differences with something other than a pistol and a power-drill. So when some tells you we have to stay, ask them why.

Hmm, that sounds like a real dubious interpretation of these statistics. First, it's hard for me believe that physical reminders of US occupation are the main driving force behind the sectarian fighting. My observations of the Iraq situation tell me that the US presence has been acting of late as more of a limiter of how intense a civil war there is. Without US soldiers, I see a full-scale civil war...the Iraqi's themselves seem to expect such a power struggle so I tend to side with them.

Second, they ignore the reasons for the draw down in US troops in Al-Anbar province and thus confuse the chain of causation:

US soldiers didn't leave al-Anbar and then violence went down. In fact, violence went down in al-Anbar and then US soldiers were able to leave. That difference tells me that their interpretation is wrong.

The drop in violence in al-Anbar has its own region specific reasons (the al-Anbar Model), which I go into in a previous post (I don't want to get sidetracked). This same previous post also details why what the US has fostered in al-Anbar is dangerous and counterproductive. It's a good read...and yes that is shameless promotion of my old works!! lol

I'll add that the al-Anbar model - where Sunni insurgent groups (some) have worked to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) - has done wonders to eliminate their ranks.

So says the Generals as well - In that previous post just mentioned above I more or less see that AQI is likely to be wiped out by Sunni groups (part of the al-Anbar model), but as I note, those same Sunni groups have vowed to return to attacking Americans should AQI really be down for the count...so, not exactly a good thing. I myself think they are exagerating and undersestimating AQI staying power. AQI is not that large of an actor, but it would be foolish to underestimate them.

- Reinforcing the drop in violence with Sunnis is this Washington Post article that tells us that US planners are seeing the Shias as a rising threat.

Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker have concluded that Shiite extremists pose a rising threat to the U.S. effort in Iraq, as the relative influence of Sunni insurgent groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq has diminished drastically because of ongoing U.S. operations...(snip)

"As the Sunni insurgents quit fighting us, the problems we have with criminality and other militia, many of them Shia, become relatively more important," said a U.S. Embassy official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not finalized.

The plan also acknowledges that the U.S. military -- with limited time and troops -- cannot guarantee a wholesale defeat of its enemies in Iraq, and instead is seeking "political accommodation" to persuade them to end the use of violence, the officials said.

The stats seem to bear out the relative increase in importance of the Shias, although as I have noted, this lull in Sunni attacks against US forces is temporary, as these same groups have promised to resume attacks once AQI has been dealt a sufficient blow. And not all Sunni insurgent groups have turned on AQI, nor have all of them stopped attacking US soldiers.

There are 3 types of Sunni groups (as I see it)

1) Insurgents still working with AQI and attack US soldiers
2) Insurgents working against AQI but still vowing to attack US soldiers
3) (formerly) Insurgent groups working with the US against AQI...who nonetheless promise to resume attacks once AQI is dealth with.

None of that bodes well for the US. They are too happy about progress that really isn't progress when looked at closer.

In reference to the final bolded part about them seeking political accommodation to stop the violence: That has not happened. Nor do Iraqi's expect it to happen. Without success here, the military missions (success and failures) have no meaning or positive effect.

------
Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey

-The ambush yesterday did not act as the straw that broke the camels back...er...it didn't cause the Turkish invasion. It added to the public pressure in Turkey for such action though, but the Turks have promised to hold of a bit.

-But the Turkish government has not stopped its mobilization of troops and equipment massing on the border between Iraq and Turkey.

- Kurdish (PKK) Rebel leader to declare a cease-fire (AFP) - Certainly a good development. Although I'm not convinced it will neccessarily stop Turkey from acting against the PKK. I heard the Turkish Ambassador speak this morning on this development and he didn't exactly seem molified. It seems such a ceasefire means little to them. What they want is assurances that either the US will eliminate the PKK in Iraq or that Iraq forces or the Kurdish Regional Governments forces will eliminate northern Iraq as a safe have for the PKK. And I do not believe the US nor the Iraqi's or Iraqi Kurdish regional govt will likely do it. So at this point I'm still leaning in the direction of conflict...but the ceasefire does make me think that perhaps it's not inevitable at this point. I hope it is not.

-------

Iran

- VP Cheney heats up the rhetoric against Iran, using rhetoric earily familiar to its 2002-3 pre-war rhetoric against Iraq. A choice snip:

If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.
"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.

Cheney's words seemed to only escalate the U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III."

"We will not allow" implies there is a line that cannot be crossed. That a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. I have no doubt that they believe it is more dangerous to let Iran go nuclear than the consequences of an war with Iran. I could not disagree more. The consequences of invading a third Muslim nation, while still bogged down and stretched thin in the first two...against a larger and more militarily sophisticated nation...it would be madness!!

While I would not like to see nuclear weapons in Iran's hand, ultimately there is less threat from such a development.

Iran, like all nuclear powered nations can be deterred: There is no reason to believe that Iran would suicidally lob a nuke at the US or Israel or anyone else and risk being utterly destroyed in the nuclear retaliation from thousands of US nukes. Iran can still be deterred, although it would hamper our ability to bully and do what we want with Iran...one of the reasons nations get nukes in the first place.

Perhaps that's the real reason Cheney doesn't want to see Iran get nukes. It would certainly hamper our power to influence Iran and increase Iran's power in the region. And protecting the US global hegemony (look it up) is one of the most important goals of all neoconservatives - as Dick Cheney is.

- Joint Chiefs Chairman not so thrilled about war with Iran - The Joint Chiefs Chairman is a position that is tasked by law to be the President's (and the National Security Principals) chief independent adviser on military matters. Under this presidency this role has been circumvented often with the appointment of "yes-men" and/or pushovers to the position. We have to also remember that his job is to advise, it is up to the president to listen...something he has done little of when it involved hearing things he did not want to hear. And he does tend to listen to Cheney and his group more often.

- US supported terrorist groups attack Iran - Ironic isn't it? Hypocritical too given the type of lip service this administration and its neoconservative actors have paid to fighting a war against terrorism. But, it seems, when the targets of the terrorist group happen to be Iran...well how bad can they be they seem to think.

------

Oil and the Rising Threat of Conflicts Over It

Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and conflict - Discovering and shifting to alternative forms of energy as well as promoting more conservation are not simply issues of the environment (although global warmings effects will also increase conflicts over resources). Finding alternative energy is a neccessity not only for the survival of the planet, but for ensuring we have less reasons (than we do now) to fight wars. Interesting read.

Reminds me of an interesting Pentagon-commissioned study from 2003 which saw increased conflict due to abrupt climate change.

The reasoning is that such change will drastically limit and decrease the "carrying capacity" of food, energy, and water. And that these shortages, along with increases in population, economic slumps will lead to more wars and conflict over control of the precious little resources left. And that spells trouble (duh).

But read the actual Pentagon report - found here on the Greenpeace website

Good night.

Link Dump - Otherwise Known as a Roundup

2007-10-21T21:35:00.000-07:00

I've had a pretty eventful weekend. I had little time (and sleep) for blogging until tonight, and even now this is more of a link dump than hard-core analysis. Rummage around the post...see a link you like or think is interesting and follow it and presto...you're that much smarter!! lol

I've broken it up into 5 different categories for easy browsing: (In order)

-Iraq
-Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey
-Iran
-The War on Terror / Case Against Torture
-Immigration / Illegal Immigrations Effects
-------

Iraq

-"The Real Iraq We Knew" (Oct. 16) - An Op-Ed in the Washington Post written by 16 Army Captains who have all served in Iraq. They all paint a very stark and none-too-optimistic picture of the situation on the ground on Iraq as they saw it and as they see it now. A choice quote:

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

I wonder if Rush Limbaugh has gotten around to calling these former Army officers "phony soldiers" yet...

Iraq has recently finished its own investigation of the Nisour Circle shooting involving Blackwater mercenaries and the deaths of many innocent civilians.

-Iraq's has concluded its own probe of the incident and concludes that Blackwater mercenaries randomly shot at civilians without provocation...and they want Blackwater out

That conforms with other investigations into that incident that I've read about...but I can't seem to find that link so don't take my word for that just yet.

Blackwater likely to be out of Iraq (Oct. 17) - According to this (which may be outdated by now) Blackwater may well be on the out but that it would be a while for that to happen. I say good ridance. Of course, if its not Blackwater it will be another mercenary company filling the gap. And no doubt many former Blackwater employees in Iraq will suddenly become "DyneCorp" or some other private army's employee. Same crap different label, so it's more like PR.

Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey

Kurdish regional government (Iraq) vows to retaliate if Turkey enters Iraq - While Turkeys aim (supposedly) is to kill and stop PKK terrorist who take refuge in northern Iraq, no one could really have expected the Kurdish regional government (which is just about autonomous from Iraq proper) to simply take it without some kind of response.

Rising tensions on the Turkey-Iraq border are snowballing into a possible outbreak of war, as the president of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq said his people will defend themselves if Turkey attacks Kurdish rebels based in Kurdistan.
Turkey has put forward a condition for staying away from confrontation, saying that the Iraqi government should eradicate Kurdish rebel bases and extradite rebel leaders. However, Baghdad, already battling a bigger enemy in the mainland, has expressed its helplessness by saying that the country does not currently have the resources to defeat the guerrillas.

And what will the US do? Defend the Kurds from an attack and you lose a longtime ally and fight a fellow NATO member (among the dozens of bad repercussions). Stand by and the Kurds will certainly remember that abandonment with some resentment (to what effect I don't know).

Well, I deal with this issue more in my last post, I don't feel like rehashing it all here.

Kurds in Northern Iraq protest Turkish Parliaments force authorization (Oct. 20) -

Rebel leader threatens strike on oil pipelines if attacked - Turkey stands to be hurt bad economically in case of a strike in northern Iraq. It would be bad to see Turkey's economy go sour.

The flames of conflict are being flamed, and attempts to peacefully solve this situation seem dimmer and dimmer.

The fact that 12 more Turkish soldiers are killed by Kurdish rebels will only further flame pressure for an incursion. I say again that I sincerely doubt the Turkish leadership truly wants to enter into northern Iraq (who the hell would?). The article notes that the resolution of force may be attempts at leverage to get the US or Iraq to do something to stop the PKK, but as I have said before in my previous post, such action is unlikely on the part of the part of the US and Iraq. Then what?

Iran

Iran polls are interesting. They show that the America people are not interested in war with Iran. And the issues of WMD's, nuclear programs, and supposed support for terrorist groups killing US soldiers does not change that. The sentiment for no war is very strong. A couple interesting ones (hmm...doesn't let me copy and paste so check out the first poll). In previous months the feeling had been for more support of aggressive action against Iraq, but the trend in America is against it.

The War on Terror / Case Against Torture

FBI is having trouble bringing cases against terror suspects due to the suspect nature of evidence and intelligence gathered through torture. Its pretty well known that tortured evidence is highly suspect...people literally will say anything, admit to anything under torture, which is why most nations (including ours) do not accept evidence gathered by it. Remember, the Spanish Inquisition managed to produce an astounding amount of "confessions" back in the days. Were they really that good at catching heretics or where they just really good at torturing their victims into "confessing" their heresy? hmm....

Immigration / Illegal Immigrations Effects

In yet another study detailing the effects of immigration (including illegal immigration), we find that in Arizona, immigration of all types has been good for the Arizona economy - (Daily Kos diary by Duke 1676 citing the study)

We can now add Arizona to the long list of states in which recent studies prove that the current influx of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, have contributed far more to the economy and tax base than they receive in government services.

Joining studies from California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Washington DC, and Long Island, NY, a new report from Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona looks at the contributions and costs of Arizona's immigrant population and finds not only an overall net gain for the state, but that the loss of this population would likely cause long term economic problems....(Snip)

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion, of which about $1.5 billion came from for non-citizens. Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

An economic reality that some cities have come to realize the hard way when they attempt to get tough on illegal immigration. I'm reminded of the case of Riverside, New Jersey, who had to pull back on its "tough" immigration laws, in part, due to the heavy economic blow their city took in the wake of passing its tough immigration laws. A law it never enforced, but that nonetheless prompted an exodus by illegal immigrants, and exodus that economically hurt the town.

Although no fines were levied, the impact was severe on this former industrial town, which in recent years has seen an influx of Portuguese and Brazilian immigrants. Residents and business owners said that many in the immigrant population scattered in fear when the law was passed, leaving vacant storefronts in a once-thriving downtown.
“This is a pretty busy day,” Ed Robins, the owner of Scott Street Music, said on Tuesday afternoon. He was pointing to a nearly empty Scott Street, Riverside’s main business district. “It took $50,000 a week off our streets. That’s what was being spent by the Brazilians and Spanish.”

Many localities of late have tried to crack down on illegal immigration, prompting similar exodus' out of their cities. They are likely to similarly start feeling the hurt. I'll keep up with those stories...

That's it for the night. It's off to watch some Adult Swim or maybe finish reading that 'Blackwater' book I've been reading at a snails pace. Maybe some Fruity Pebbles first...well, anyways. Good night

Turkish Parliament: Troops into N. Iraq When (If) Given Order

2007-10-17T15:53:00.000-07:00

As expected, the Turkish Parliament passed the resolution officially authorizing any troop incursions into northern Iraq. And it passed by an overwhelming margin:

Turkey's parliament voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow the government the year-long right to send troops to neighboring northern Iraq to crush Turkish Kurdish rebels there. House speaker Koksal Toptan said 507 lawmakers in the 550-seat parliament voted in favor of a government motion seeking authorization for military action in northern Iraq; only 19 voted against.

Of course, it should be noted (and Turkey has taken pains to point out) that the passing of this resolution in no way means that a troop incursion is about to happen or even inevitable, it simply means that there is official authorization for it when it is deemed right.

So, technically nothing might happen...but, and this is a big 'but,' it is going to take some serious action on the part of the United States to convince Turkey not to do something their leaders and its population are practically demanding they do.

I'm not sure the Kurdish authorities can be counted on to crack down on PKK separatists, and as big of a mess as this could be for the US (especially since this has been the most 'peaceful region in Iraq so far), it has few options that are likely to mollify the Turks .

If it clamps down on the PKK and sends troops up north there are several drawbacks:

1) It reduces the number of troops it other necessary areas that continue to be violent areas: Baghdad, and al-Anbar...but mostly Baghdad area

2) It will inflame and anger Kurds up north who so far have proven pro-American and have not attacked US forces. Putting troops in the north increases the possibility of conflict with the Kurds, stirring up a hornets nest. I doubt the US want trouble there.

But what can it do?

It's a case of damn if you do and damn if you don't

They can't defend the Kurdish north from an incursion using the US military. Frankly that would be the worse outcome.

It would destroy our longstanding alliance with Turkey and put us in the uncomfortable and unthinkable position of having two NATO alliance members fighting each other. US supply lines which run through Turkey would likely be cut (and they still may be even if it doesn't come to blows), making keeping our soldiers armed and ready would be much more difficult.

Ultimately, I hope something will stop the Turks but if the Turks do send troops into northern Iraq, it is my belief that the US ultimately will stand by and not interfere. No doubt the Iraqi Kurds will remember that with some resentment (how that will effect future Iraq I don't know).

Things aren't looking very good...here's to a peaceful resolution.

I'll keep updating here.

PS: For you car people, you may start feeling the effects of this drama pretty soon. Fear of an incursion into norther Iraq have sent crude oil prices to $88 dollar/barrel and would only go up if they were to enter. Kirkuk - in norther Iraq - is rich with oil deposits and it should also be noted that the main transit point for Kirkuk oil runs through (you guessed it) Turkey.

PPS: I'm trying to shorten up my posts so I may post more often from now on. That way I can deal with the same amount of info but make it easier to read.

Turkey to Invade Northern Iraq? What's Behind It and What Does It Mean for the US?

2007-10-13T18:41:00.000-07:00

By now some of you might have heard about the very real threat of Turkey sending in troops to Northern Iraq's Kurdish region.

This development is by no means a sudden and out-of-the-blue thing; This tension has been steadily building up for a while now. I myself have been keeping tabs on the situation at least as far back as July of 2006 but I know that this tension has been building up since before that.

Kurdistan
First a map of "Kurdistan", in quotes because although so named, its not actually a nation. It encompasses 3 nations and therein lies some of the problem. They are an ethnic group with no nation, so there are some movements for "separation" to create their own state...obviously existing nations who would lose land don't exactly like that idea.

Short Summary of the Situation
A short and overly simplified explanation for the situation is:

Kurdish separatist militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party (The PKK is the local acronym) (considered a terrorist group) undertake separatist activity in Turkey that often involve acts of terror such as ambushes and explosions killing Turkish politicians and innocent civilians.

These Kurdish seperatists often escape to northern Iraq's Kurdish region where they have a safe haven from attacks my Turkey's military, and they are free to train and use norther Iraq as a base of operations for attacks in Turkey.

The Kurdish authorities have done little if anything to crack down on the PKK, angering Turkey, and the US has not done anything to curtail the PKK, further angering Turkey.
[At this point it should be noted that Turkey is a long running ally of the United States dating back to the Cold War, and that Turkey along with the US are members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) who's defining principal is that 'if one member nation is attacked, it is as if all were attacked']

So officials in Turkey are so fed up with this situation that they are mulling sending in troops to Northern Iraq to deal with the Kurdish separatists.

For a good, and less simplistic, overview of the situation I urge you to read "What's Behind the Turkish Threat to Send Troops to Iraq"by noted Daily Kos diarist DHinMI.

It is not too long and will help you understand the news you see or hear better.

If you've done that (hell, even if you haven't) I can move along to the subject at hand.

----------
The Unfolding Situation

Things seem to be coming to a head, and the next few links will detail this unfolding situation

First, Turkey's top political and military leaders 'authorize' troops to enter Iraq to fight the rebels (NY Times)

ISTANBUL, Oct. 9 — Turkey took a step toward a military operation in Iraq on Tuesday, as its top political and military leaders issued a statement authorizing troops to cross the Iraq border to eliminate separatist Kurdish rebel camps in the northern region. (snip)
Turkey moved toward military action in the face of strong opposition by the United States, which is anxious to maintain peace in the region, one of the rare areas of stability in conflict-torn Iraq. But more than two dozen Turkish soldiers have been killed in recent days, and the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seemed far more determined than before to act decisively.
A government official without authorization to speak publicly on the issue who asked not to be identified by name, said preparations were under way to seek parliamentary approval for a cross-border military operation, a request that would be the first formal step toward an offensive.
The Associated Press reported that the request would be submitted to Parliament as early as Wednesday.
Government offices and institutions have been ordered “to take all economic and political measures, including cross-border operations when necessary, in order to end the existence of the terror organization in a neighboring country,” said the statement, which was released by Mr. Erdogan’s office, after he met with political and military leaders in Ankara.
A Turkish military offensive into northern Iraq, while unlikely, would have far-reaching consequences for the United States. Turkey is a NATO member and has the region’s most powerful army.

As the article notes, such an offensive would have disastrous repercussions for Iraq and for the United States. (I'll go into some of those negative repercussion later on in this post).

For now I want to shift your attention to the final bolded part of that excerpt where the NY Times seemingly asserts unilaterally - without reason or source - that "A Turkish military offensive into northern Iraq [is] unlikely..."

Again, the times makes such a bold claim without explaining the reasoning behind its assertion, nor does it even cite 'anonymous officials' or "X expert" or whatever to explain it either.

Especially confusing because subsequent articles and events are pointing in the direction of ever increasing likelihood of a Turkish incursion into Iraq.

What's my reasoning?

-------

All subsequent events since the initial announcement of "authorization" for the incursion has pointed in the direction of escalation, not deescalation.

First, it has been reported that the ruling Justice & Development Party (in Turkey) promised that a motion to allow Turkish soldiers to cross over into Iraq will be ready to be voted on by next week. Giving the "authorization" previously mentioned the legislative legitimacy needed. And, given the extreme public pressure on the Prime Minister and on other MP (Ministers of Parliament...think similarly to US Representatives even if not exact matches) to do something about Kurdish separatist problems that has claimed the lives of so many civilians and soldiers, it stands a good chance of passing.

Officials of the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party said a motion allowing Turkish forces to conduct a cross border operation into Iraq could be ready for a voting in the Parliament by next week while the Bush administration says such a measure will create more complications and that border security concerns can be better addressed by working with the government in Baghdad. Meanwhile, NATO remains silent.

And in what has to be one of the more ironic things to come out of the mouths of Bush Administration officials, we have this:

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is under domestic pressure to act against PKK militants whose attacks have killed 15 Turkish soldiers since Sunday. Some Turkish lawmakers say they are following the example of President Bush, who often says U.S. troops are fighting terrorists inside Iraq so they do not have to fight them at home. While the United States considers the PKK a terrorist group, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says the president does not support unilateral Turkish military action in Iraq.

Ha!! The US is stuck in an awfully awkward position of its own doing. It is in the position of trying to tell Turkey to not unilaterally invade another nation...a nation that just so happens to also be Iraq! Though it's kind of hard to have any moral position to tell another nation not to undertake an action that they themselves asserted the unrestrained right to do just a few years ago.

What's even more ironic is that Turkish politicians have taken to using one of the very same rationales - fighting the terrorists - that the United States did in its justifying of invading Iraq.

Oh, irony of ironies!!....

And in actuality, Turkey can make a much better and legitimate case for its incursion into northern Iraq on those grounds that the United States ever could on the same grounds (the terror links were patently shown to be non-existent and that was know by the non-partisans in the intelligence community even before the US invasion).

Yet another repercussion of our Iraq invasion: Nations will emulate the US thinking, "if the US does it....so can I"

Don't believe me? Here's what the Prime Minister of Turkey had to say to a crowd of cheering Turks:

"We don't need anyone's advice on northern Iraq and the operation to be carried out there," Erdogan told a cheering crowd in Istanbul, after saying that the United States "came tens of thousands of kilometers and attacked Iraq without asking anyone's permission."

What kind of argument can the Bush Administration possibly use in response without being branded the worlds largest hypocrites?
-----
A second development that points in the direction of increasing escalation is the fact that Turkey's warplanes and gunships have already begun attacking suspected PKK targets on and around the Iraqi border.

Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships attacked suspected positions of Kurdish rebels near Iraq on Wednesday, a possible prelude to a cross-border operation that would likely raise tensions with Washington. The military offensive also reportedly included shelling of Turkish Kurd guerrilla hideouts in northern Iraq, which is predominantly Kurdish.

So they have begun air attacks in Iraq, the next step is the ground troops. And this little piece tells you how possible that Turkish parliament resolution of force is of passing:

An opposition nationalist party said it would support the proposal.
If parliament approves, the military could choose to launch an operation immediately or wait to see if the United States and its allies decide to crack down on the rebels, who have been fighting for autonomy in southeast Turkey since 1984 in a conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

When the ruling party and those in a opposing nationalist party are seeing eye-to-eye, you have some trouble. Of course, nationalist, being nationalists, are usually the most jingoistic when it comes to using force. And of course there must be other opposition parties who are not quite so nationalistic...I'd really like to know where the other parties stand.

And how serious is the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan: Apparently, serious enough to claim that he is ready for a US-Turkey split (Washington Post) in the aftermath of an incursion.

Now, is he really serious about that, I simply don't know. It is indeed possible that this sharp language is the Prime Ministers attempt to get the U.S. and Iraq to finally do something themselves to stop the PKK terrorist group in northern Iraq.

I sincerely doubt that Turkey really wants a military engagement on their hands, as well as a significant blow to relations with one of Turkey's oldest ally (and fellow NATO member) the United States. But Turkey will only accept so much...if it doesn't see the U.S. or Iraq doing anything to reign in the PKK, Turkey may just go ahead and enter northern Iraq....

And the consequences are many

Possible Consequences

As mentioned before, the US has had a long standing alliance and relationship with Turkey. They are both NATO members and it will be interesting to see where NATO and its North Atlantic Council stand on the issue of one member invading where another nation is involved in.

What worries me is that Turkey with its its predominantly Muslim population has nonetheless managed to retain a more secular society that is balanced with more moderated Islamic sentiments, and we risk Turkey drifting apart from US. This drifting away from the US is not being helped by the fact that the Senate recently passed a non-binding resolution that calls the mass-killing of Armenians by the old Ottoman Empire (precursor to the nation of Turkey) a "genocide". What horrible timing on the part of Democrats...

[Turkey has vehemently denied it was a "genocide" (it IS a genocide I don't care what they say) and is very very touchy about the issue for them. Don't know why they are so touchy...the genocide was the work of a regime and Empire that no longer exists, and that the founders of the modern Turkish nation fought against...why deny the crimes of a regime they fought against? But I'm an American looking at this from an American perspective so where the hell do I get off]

Turkey although not perfect, in many ways is the type of majority Muslim nation that more closely resemble that "model" that some see for the Middle East at large. It would be very regrettable for the US and Turkey to drift farther apart due to this, yet what can the US do?

Northern Iraq has been one of the relatively peaceful spots in Iraq and I seriously doubt it wants to stir things up in Northern Iraq and potentially make enemies with the Kurds who so far have proven much more pro-American than the other sectarian groups in Iraq. And sending in troops to the by the US has the potential to create drama that the US does not need any more of.

They already have their hands full with the myriads of Sunni and Shia groups fighting the US, fighting themselves, and fighting each other... I doubt the US wants to make the situation any worse.

But if they cannot come to some agreement that placates the Turkish government, Turkey may just go in themselves and stir things up in a region that up till now has been relatively peaceful.

And a breakdown in US-Turkey relations has serious repercussions on its own, especially as it regards the Iraq mission:

From previously cited article (AP):

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkish air space. About a third of the fuel used by the U.S. military in Iraq also goes through Turkey.
"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said.

Turkey has raised the possibility of impeding logistical and other U.S. military traffic now using the airspace.

We depend heavily on Turkey for maintaining our presence in Iraq, and a split could seriously complicate the mission in a very abrupt manner.

So, stay tuned and pay attention to the news because things might get a little more "interesting" (not good interesting either) in the near future. And I'll be here, keeping track on my own and reporting here.

------

Your Thoughts?

So, what are your thoughts? Based on what you've read here, what you've heard, seen or read elsewhere, or just on your gut...What do you guys think?

Will Turkey enter Northern Iraq? What will the US do? What's going to happen? etc..etc...

I'd really like to know what you guys think.

Latest From Iraq: Stats in Doubt, Reconciliation is Dead, The Army is Exhausted, Mercenaries Are Scum + More

2007-10-12T13:19:00.000-07:00

There's a lot on my plate today in terms of interesting articles and news to share.

So lets begin where so much of my attention seems to always be in - Iraq

Iraq

So how are things going in Iraq these days? The 'Surge' is in full force and we're supposed to be creating an environment for political reconciliation to occur...is it? A relevant question to ask given that the whole purpose of this much debated 'Surge' was to bring about just such progress.

According to the Washington Post (Oct. 8), Iraqi's do not think reconciliation is attainable and are instead preparing for a power struggle

For much of this year, the U.S. military strategy in Iraq has sought to reduce violence so that politicians could bring about national reconciliation, but several top Iraqi leaders say they have lost faith in that broad goal.
Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government. Instead of reconciliation, they now stress alternative and perhaps more attainable goals: streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.
"I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. "To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power."

Humam Hamoudi, a prominent Shiite cleric and parliament member, said any future reconciliation would emerge naturally from an efficient, fair government, not through short-term political engineering among Sunnis and Shiites.

Stacking the government with technocrats (who are though of nonpartisan experts in their field) might be a good idea but where are they going to find these experts when so many of the great minds of Iraq have fled the carnage of post-Saddam Iraq? Those with the experience and skills and education have been pouring out of Iraq, so there is but one problem.

Second, how are they going to choose these people and how will they be accepted by rival groups in the context of a power struggle?

As to what a future reconciliation emerging from "an efficient, fair government" I ask: How the hell do you expect an efficient and fair government to emerge out of a power struggle? Because, in power struggle someone is usually a winner and another a loser (relatively) and the winners definition of what is fair may not exactly coincide with what the loser thinks is a fair government. In fact that's a lot of the problem Iraqi groups are facing today.

Sunnis see their relative power in Iraq being too low in the Central government and they see the the Shia as dominating the government. So far the Shias have been pretty stingy with the power, no doubt a result of the anger and resentment they harbor against the Sunnis who where the dominant group in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Any compromise or reconciliation will require an efficient and fair government to emerge but it almost inevitably (at least it seems so to me) means that the Shia will need to give up some of the grip they have on the Iraqi central government in order for the Sunnis to really play ball. I'm not too optimistic about that fact but you never know.

The following excerpt makes the same point:

"I, as deputy prime minister responsible for the portfolio of security and services, until now, have never been consulted on any security operation taking place in Iraq," said Salam Z. al-Zobaee, Iraq's second-highest Sunni official. "The Sunnis, even if they've been participating in the government, are still marginalized in decision-making."
The idea of "reconciliation" in Iraq has always been short on specifics. To Sunnis, it tends to mean Shiites will release their grip on decision-making, allow them greater influence in the government, crack down on militants regardless of their sect and promote peaceful cooperation between politicians. Sunnis demand the release of thousands of prisoners who have never been charged, the purging of all militiamen from the Iraqi security forces and influence in military decisions.
To Shiites, reconciliation is a process fraught with risks that Sunni "supremacists" will attempt to seize their former position of authority over the majority Shiites. Many Shiites believe that reconciliation requires punishing those who, during Saddam Hussein's government, ruthlessly killed and repressed Shiites and Kurds.
"It's clearly perceived by the government that reconciliation is clearly a winner for the Sunnis and not a winner for the Shias," said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff for the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq. "The question becomes: How do you start balancing that scale a little bit?"
Many Shiites, still aggrieved by the crimes committed against them under Hussein, are not ready for new programs or legislation attempting to force a balance into existence.

And that's the problem. When do you think non partisan technocrats will be put in when Shias are not really interested in the system being fairer to Sunnis out of fear and resentment for past mistreatment?

Not to mention that "reconciliation" means very different things to the two groups...it leaves little to be optimistic about.
-----

Making things worse for the already chaotic situation in Iraq is the fact that there is so much internal displacement of Iraqi's [Iraqis forced to leave their homes and reside in other Iraqi provinces].

A travesty on its own that seems to be further fragmenting up Iraq and feeding new recruits to the violent sectarian groups (BBC)

The scale of the overall displacement is unprecedented in the modern history of the Middle East.
There are now an estimated four million Iraqis who have been forced to flee their homes, and the numbers continue to rise, according to the UN refugee agency.
Neighbouring Jordan and Syria, which have borne the brunt of the problem after receiving some two million refugees over the past few years, have now restricted access because they can no longer cope with the influx.(snip)
The refugee problem is also likely to make national reconciliation even more difficult to achieve.
'Recruiting-grounds'
Ghaith Abdul Ahad, an Iraqi journalist, says the areas where displaced Iraqis live have become fertile recruiting-grounds for militants.
"The insurgents in west Baghdad tell me that the hardest fighters are the Sunnis who have been kicked out of their homes by the Shia," Mr Abdul Ahad told the BBC.
There is a real fear that the temporary ramshackle refugee camps that today dot the Iraqi landscape are festering wounds that may take years to heal.
More ominously, they are a breeding ground for violence as well as social and political turmoil.
Outside Iraq, the long-term effect of the exodus is difficult to foresee.
Some analysts have drawn comparisons with the plight of the Palestinians, who were forced to flee after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
And if that analogy is anything to go by, then the Iraqi refugee crisis could become a destabilising factor for the entire region for years to come.
No one can predict the exact impact on the precarious demographic balance in neighbouring Syria and Jordan, which have received the highest numbers of Iraqi refugees.

Insurgencies by their nature require a steady flow of new recruits in order to remain viable due to the very violent nature and high "turnover" of insurgents [yes, that is a euphemism for death]. The cleansing of neighborhoods [making them only 1 sectarian group or another] has created much resentment and anger and resentment and anger are two commodities that have been all to abundant in Iraq.

And notice the unintended consequences of our invasion: We are saddling neighboring Arab nations with millions and millions of Iraqi refugees. The effects of such a large refugee groups in those nations could prove quite bad. The article says it may have a destabilizing influence on the Middle East region in general and that doesn't seem a far-fetched conclusion.

----

And, speaking of insurgents, we get this news that can't be making the US or the Iraqi (Shia dominated govt) too happy.

Iraq Insurgent Groups Form One Council - In reality there are still many groups like the 1920 Brigades who are independent, but even then there appears to generally be a 3-fold split in the Sunni groups.

1) Sunni insurgent groups working with al-Qaeda to attack Americans
2) Sunni insurgent groups (or formerly insurgent), and Sunni tribes working with Americans (temporarily they promise) to attack al-Qaeda
3) Sunni insurgents coalition (like the one in the above link) that want to attack the US and Al-Qaeda

2 out of 3 attack Americans, and the 1 that does not, has already promised to resume attacking Americans once al-Qaeda has been dealt with...none of that is good news for the US in the long term.

Excerpt:

Six main Iraqi insurgent groups announced the formation of a "political council" aimed at "liberating" Iraq from U.S. occupation in a video aired Thursday on Al-Jazeera television.
The council appeared to be a new attempt to assert the leadership of the groups, which have moved to distance themselves from another coalition of insurgent factions led by al-Qaida in Iraq...(snip)

The new groups principles include:

"First, the occupation is an oppression and aggression, rejected by Islamic Sharia law and tradition. Resistance of occupation is a right guaranteed by all religions and laws," he said. "Second, the armed resistance ... is the legitimate representative of Iraq. It is the one that bears responsibility for the leadership of the people to achieve its legitimate hope."

The groups forming the council include the Islamic Army of Iraq, the Mujahideen Army, Ansar al-Sunna, the Fatiheen Army, the Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance (Jami) and the Islamic Movement of Hamas-Iraq.

The step could be a bid by the insurgents for a more cohesive political voice at a time of considerable rearrangement among Sunni insurgent groups and Iraq's Sunni Arab minority.

This group, nor the Sunni group working with al-Qaeda in Iraq, nor the the Sunni group working with the Americas believes in the legitimacy of the Shia dominated central government in Iraq. They are the "legitimate representatives of Iraq."

Some look to the downturn in violence in al-Anbar Province as a sign of progress but if you look more critically and deeper you understand how the "Anbar model" is very dangerous and counterproductive. I went into that in more depth in a past post from September 19

----

The US Army Iraq Exhaustion

According to the Army Chief, the Army will require 3 to 4 years to recover from the strains that the Iraq mission has placed on it.

That's 3 or 4 years in which the US will not be as prepared or ready to deal with other threats or crisis as they pop up in the coming years. The Iraq mission imperils our national security in so many ways that it baffles the mind.

------

General Petraeus and Iraq Statistics

The NY Times Public Editor recently tackled the issue of the frustrating difference in Iraq violence statistics

Definitely something worth reading, but this stood out. Greg Sargent of the Horses Mouth explains:

Specifically, Hoyt reports that he spoke to one of Petraeus' own advisers, and despite having advised Petraeus he still says that the General's recent testimony to Congress about Iraq may have been misleading in key ways:

Stephen Biddle, a scholar at the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, said Petraeus's December number was "very high" but was likely the result of "statistical noise" — the tendency of Iraq numbers to jump all over the place. Biddle was an adviser to Petraeus last spring but believes the general's testimony was "potentially misleading" because it didn't discuss all the reasons why the numbers might have improved.
He said the best way to analyze statistics from Iraq is to gather all the numbers from all sources and look for broad trends instead of picking isolated points, as Petraeus did. Biddle examined data from nine sources on Iraqi civilian deaths, including the U.S. military, independent organizations like Brookings and Iraq Body Count and four news organizations. Although the specific monthly numbers varied widely, he said they all showed declines since late 2006.

Did we know that even one of Petraeus' own advisers thinks the General's methodology was suspect? I didn't know it...(snip)

Seems like a subject that deserves some further inquiry. After all, a member of Petraeus' informal brain-trust has now said publicly that the General's testimony was "potentially misleading." And he suggested that it could have been misleading in not one, but two ways. First, because it didn't delve into all the reasons for the shifting security picture in Iraq, thus giving more credit to the surge than it might have deserved. And second, because Petraeus selected December 2006, when civilian casualties spiked, as the basis for comparison to this summer's numbers, thus inflating the alleged decline. Those seem like serious critiques.

Nothing really to add to that except to say that its still a little apples-and-oranges to compare violence statistics from December 2006 to September2007. Comparing them on a year by year comparison from the same time of year [comparing July 2006 to July 2007 for example] is a much better measure for various reasons I don't want to get into again.

---------

Unaccountable, Arrogant Mercenaries in Iraq

Blackwater Mercenaries are definitely no friends to US soldiers and nothing but trouble for the mission in Iraq. This personally pissed me off when I read it:

The colonel was furious. "Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers." He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad's Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV.

The fucking gall of these arrogant ass mercs!! Who the hell do they think they are!! Not only do they lord it over and treat Iraqi's like shit (and often target practice), but they are so arrogant and think themselves so unaccountable that they feel like they can treat U.S. Soldiers like pieces of shit too!!

Whatever else Blackwater is or isn't guilty of—a topic of intense interest in Washington—it has a well-earned reputation in Iraq for arrogance and high-handedness. Iraqis naturally have the most serious complaints; dozens have been killed by Blackwater operatives since the beginning of the war. But many American civilian and military officials in Iraq also have little sympathy for the private security company and its highly paid employees.

These scum think they own the place, feel free to treat Iraqi and US soldier alike like crap, and to top it off its not abnormal for these mercenaries to get paid in the $100,000 to $200,000 range just to do the job that the US military is supposed to be doing.

But the Bush administration, as with every other thing, likes to privatize everything it touches including much of the US military's traditional duties, and give private security firms (often with close connections to the White House or Republican groups...coincidence?) a shitload of money from us tax payers.

To make matters worse, these mercs treat Iraqi's like shit, and further tarnish the image of the US in Iraq, and undercut its goal of reaching hearts and minds in Iraq...in other words they hurt our mission in Iraq while costing US taxpayers a fucking fortune in the process!! Then they disrespect our soldiers on a daily basis.

Scum.

I try not an curse so much in my posts but...I reeeeeally don't like these mercenaries.

That's all for today, and I'm still didn't even get to Turkey and its threats to invade northern Iraq (what a thing to leave out!!)...tomorrow I guess.

RoundUp - For the past 2 weeks (Part I)

2007-10-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

It's such a drag when I put off posting for so long. Usually, it means I have a ton of articles open as separate tags. I had a lot I though might be interesting but I had to cut somethings out for my sake. And that's the reason for the RoundUp style...there will be little substance and analysis on certain links, but at least I'll get all links out for interested people to follow up if they are interested.

That's what happens when you buy a new video game (Legend of Zelda DS in case you're wondering :-) )

So, without further ado, I'll start this Roundup with Iran
------
Iran
Now, this first article (despite its Oct. 8 date) is at least a week old so it's possible some of you have seen or at least heard about this new Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker.

Anyways, in this article Hersh (among other things) details how the Bush Administration has shifted its case for war [the PR part] from the threat of nuclear weapons to emphasizing and exaggerating Iran's role in Iraq, especially when it comes to the deaths of US soldiers . It is a long article but full of great information but I'll highlight some of the parts that caught my attention.

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

Look at the first bolded part: The US shifted its focus to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and this ties quite well (and ominously) to a recent action by the Administration. A few weeks back it decided to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is essentially a military organization, a terrorist organization.

That is unprecedented...labeling another nations military a terrorist organization is unprecedented. But that's not the why this is ominous. The reason for alarm is that in 2002, Congress gave the President an Authorization to Use Force (AUF) to do all it could to combat terrorist groups in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The fear is that the Administration, having labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, will go back and use that 2002 AUF as its legal justification for striking Iranian targets. And without having to go to Congress.

Making matters worse is the fact that the Senate recently passed a "Sense of the Senate" (non-binding) resolution designating the same group a terrorist organization...an amendment that Hillary Clinton supported like a stupid child who failed to learn her lesson the first time she voted to give the administration the authorization to go to war in Iraq and now she helps the administration in its attempts to go to Iran...stupid. Thankfully the other top tier candidate who could vote on the issue did not vote for it: Barack Obama.

Now for the second bolded part of the excerpt: It's attempts to strike at Iran are heavily motivated by the increased geopolitical position that Iran is now. But do you get it?

The war in Iraq is precisely what strengthened Iran...and now they want to go to another costly and disastrous war to...that's right...make up for the consequences that their first costly and disastrous war has wraught!

The Republicans, Bush, and the Neocons. Their motto really is: "When you find yourself in a whole (that you created), dig deeper."

Other interesting excerpts:

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

Wow. In an administration known both for its extreme of politics and warmongering...its seems that the warmongering nature of these people is much more powerful than it's concern for the political future of the Republicans. As much as I would like to see Republicans completely eliminated as a national party...I'd much rather that the President not strike Iran and cause a new disaster. Besides, the Republicans are already on the verge of another crushing defeat in the Presidential, Senate, and House elections in 2008 so it really doesn't matter.

Unless that's part of the calculation at the White House: They see a crushing defeat for Republicans who will not control any level of power in 2009, so they want to saddle Democrats with Iraq for 2009, and they want to bring on a conflict with Iran while they can because they know that Democrats will not do so. BTW, this is all speculation so don't look to deep into it...but it has an element of logic to it.

Another one: Apparently our own allies are so afraid of Cheney and Bush using any intelligence as a pretext for war with Iran that...they are afraid sometime to pass it on!!

Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.
The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.”

I think they have good reason to be afraid.

The Iranian Foreign Minister apparently is quite confident that the US can't attack Iran (Oct.3) -

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Wednesday the United States was in no position to start a war against Tehran against the wishes of its taxpayers, given its military commitment in Iraq

I've said this before to a similar statement from the Iranian President himself. Do NOT get to confident about that. Any other President, any other Vice President and you might just be right but this administration has shown such a single-minded dedication to an aggressive and unilateral foreign policy and to warmongering that you cannot rule out a strike. And do you think they care about the US taxpayer or about US public opinion? Hell no!! They have continued unpopular policies in Iraq despite the fact that vast majorities are against our presence there. And as the previous Hersh article highlights, they can also give a rats ass about what Congress thinks, nor do they care about the fallout will be for the Republican party.

Does this seem like an administration that has the sense to not attack? They just don't care about anything but their goals...so I say to the Iranian President, and to the Foreign Minister: Don't delude yourselves!

-------
The War on Terror

Report says War or Terror is Fueling Al-Qaeda -

Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.
A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.
"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.

"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."
He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.
The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria...(snip)
"Going to war with Iran", he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

I tried for the life of me a couple days ago to find the report on the Oxford Research Group Website but couldn't, so the news accounts are all I got to run on

The reason is that the report takes a comprehensive look at what an alternative to the current war on terror would look like. And from what I've read so far about 'looking at underlying causes of of support', its recognition that the war in Iraq has been a counterproductive disaster that we must leave from in order to start containing the damage, and its advising 'intensive diplomatic engagement in the region including Iran and Syria' and that we only make things worse if we go to war in Iran.....The tenor of the prescribed alternative to the war on terror seems to mirror my own views and stances. I'd love to read the report itself but dammit I can't find it!!

And for you International Relations majors out there, in a related note, I came across an interesting new phrase that encompasses this new alternative, as well as a more balanced and sane broader foreign policy: Sustainable Security. Take a look, its interesting.

------

Blackwater/Mercenaries/Iraq

Much in the news lately about Blackwater and mercenary organization in general due to the recent high profile incidents in which Blackwater mercenaries killed and wounded dozens of Iraqi's in Nisour Square. But incident's like these, nor even incidents of mercenaries that are out of control, are quite common if not often publicized.

I'm still reading the book "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" by Jeremy Scahill, in which the history of the organization is detailed. [BTW if you read the Publisher's Weekly review of the book, please note that they are completely off base. "A cosnpiracy by neocons to subvert democracy", please. The author never said that!!]

And believe me, alot of this stuff is scary. In addition you get a sense of the sheer brutality, lawlessness of these mercs. They are immune to prosecution in Iraq, and are not held accountable by the military, so they literally can (and have!!) gotten away with murder. Their wanton brutality over the years has made the US attempts to win Iraqi hearts and minds that much more difficult, and they already were doing a pretty bad job. I will not do much analysis, I'll just introduce the following Blackwater related links for those interested.

Senior US Military Officials Fault Blackwater in the shooting of 11 Iraqi civilians - Tough choice for Republicans: Will they side with Mercenaries they've so steadfastly defended and carried water for, or will they side with the military?

Here are a few more details, but about the same military report (Washington Post)

Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki is calling it "murder" - The Iraqi's and the military reeeeally don't like mercenaries and they have good reason not to.

In fact, Iraq wants Blackwater out of the country and to arrest those involved in the recent Nisoor Circle incident:

Iraqi authorities want the U.S. government to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm's guards sprayed a traffic circle with heavy machine gun fire last month...

It said the compensation — totaling $136 million — was so high "because Blackwater uses employees who disrespect the rights of Iraqi citizens even though they are guests in this country."....

It said Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq expired on June 2, 2006, meaning it had no immunity from prosecution under Iraqi laws set down after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The government report also challenged the claim that a decree in June 2004 by then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer granted Blackwater immunity from legal action in incidents such as the one in Nisoor Square. The report said the Blackwater guards could be charged under a criminal code from 1969.

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the diplomatic mission would have no comment on the report. Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, said the document was in American hands.

The report found that Blackwater guards also had killed 21 Iraqi civilians and wounded 27 in previous shootings since it took over security for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad after the U.S. invasion. The Iraqi government did not say whether it would try to prosecute in those cases.

The State Department has counted 56 shooting incidents involving Blackwater guards in Iraq this year. All were being reviewed as part of the comprehensive inquiry ordered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

A this is just Blackwater. There are may more mercenary outfits in Iraq who act just as reckless.

The problem for the US is that, frankly, it cannot function any longer without the thousands of mercenaries it hired. The US military is stretched to the breaking point as it is and it would only get worse if Blackwater and its band of thousands were removed. So its stuck in a quandry:

The Iraqis are pissed at us, yet if we allow Blackwater to be prosecuted, we only open up the rest of the mercenary firms to similar action. If we boot Blackwater, we lose thousands of boots. In the end I do not think Blackwater will be forced out.

We can't even be in Iraq without all these damn mercs, and those mercs are not making things better. If we have to rely so heavily on these goons just to maintain the horrible status quo, what the hell are we still doing there? We need to leave.

----------

I decide to split this roundup into two posts due to length. The next post will have more to do with Iraq in the sense of in the context of the ongoing civil war, and in the context of the violence statistics of General Petraeus.

Peace folks

Racism Is Still Alive And Well - And A Tangible Barrier To Minorities

2007-10-01T14:19:00.000-07:00

I have a few items to post on my usual fare -- foreign affairs, especially Iran -- but I'll put that off for later to share this post dealing with racism in America today.

I felt compelled to share this because this issue has been a pretty prickly one in my experience. And the issue is the progress and sometimes lack of progress minorities, especially African-Americans have been making in America since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the late 60's.

There is often this though among Americans ranging the spectrum that racism is either gone, or more commonly, that it has been reduced to such a level that it is not a significant tangible barrier for minorities, especially Black people, to make it to a better life. The implcit argument is that these minorities are whinning with out cause, and simply seek to blame their situation on outside factors without addressing their own faults for their bad circumstances.

Now, there is something to be said about personal initiative and drive, but it is foolish and ignorant to ignore the substancial and still-present barriers Black Americans face.

Read this post, titled 'White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records'

Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled "Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets."

All good links, but the only one that I had never seen was the one detailing how white Americans smoke more marijuana per-capita than black Americans yet blacks are arrested at far-higher rates. What is clear, at least from these few links (which is anything but comprehensive in detailing the whole picture), is that there is some institutional racism or prejudice still present in America unfairly targets African americans more harshly than whites.

But the final link 'Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.' highlights what I think is the most incidious type of latent racism in America today: That involving employement.

In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.

Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers.

It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.

However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records...(snip)
Given how wary our society is of ex-offenders, and how difficult it is for ex-offenders to obtain gainful employment, this finding reveals the depth and breadth of racism in the job market.

How this ties in to the crime and racism in criminal justice data is clear. Black Americans, in the big picture, are more likely to be locked up, and arrested (and given more time) for offeses than other races. Our criminal justice system comes down a lot harder on black americans.

Yet boosting this phenomena further are the underlying factors that boost criminal activity in black neighborhoods:

Higher poverty rates, poor schools due to low property tax revenue, which breeds an environment condusive to increase violence, and inadequate means to escape or improve the environment.

Its like a negative self-reinforcing circle:

The poverty and government neglect that are legacies of the pre-Civil Rights era has trapped African americans in this loop.

-Poverty and neglect are envrionment that breed violence and crime (often drug dealing and drug offenses)

- The criminal justice system is tilted against african americans overall and has been shown to imprison and punish black people more harshly than other races

- You are left with a large population of the population with a criminal record

- Employement racism and prejudice figures have shown that not only are blacks overall with the same qualifications as whites less likely to be hired as whites, but that white former criminal offenders are just as likely of being hired as a black person with a clean record. A black person with a record...forget about it.

Meaning: Less employement opportunities for African Americans and thus, less opportunities for better income, less oportunity to make a better life for themselves

- This lack of opportunity feeds the negative circle, by making crime a much more appealing (and practical) way for people to survive...but of course this only feeds the circle by ensuring more and more violence and crime in the neighborhood.

Its all a negative circle of factors that feeds on itself and serves to ensure one thing: More often than not, the poor stay poor. More often than not, blacks stay in the ghetto with little chance of success....And then we can point our fingers and chide them for not being able to progress much in the last half of the 20th and begigning of the 21st century. All the while most of us go to sleep ignorant of the institutional and other factors working against african americans.

It's not that African americans are any less capable than other races, its that from a black persons birth and finding its orignins in the disadvantaged-starting-point that the Jim Crow laws and other racist laws of the late 19th and 20th century put black americans - the cards of circumstance are often stacked against african americans.

There are many examples of people making it: Getting out the hood, becoming success etc...but that's not what the issue is here.

The issue is not that sometimes people can be succesfull in spite of the factors working against them (because many can). No, the issue is one of equality and fairness of opportunity.

The data so far sources has demonstrated one thing quite clearly: As far as we may have come, we are a LONG way from African Americans having a level playing field.

And that is the thing; No one asks for 'special privilidges,' simply policies and considerations that would help level the playing field in America.

So that a black man, and a white man can trully reach the limits of his/her ability, his intelligence, and his drive. So that no one race starts a 26 mile marathon 5 miles behind the starting point for the other race.

Repercussions for Affirmative Action
In this light, programs such as affirmative action which seek to boost African American and other minority race chances of employement, of being enrolled in colleges are not "reverse discrimination" as some critics assert.

Critics assert that it unfairly gives minorities access to jobs and college spots, and that is unfair (and even a form of reverse racism). But that complely flies in the face of the original and continuing purpose of Affirmative Action: To affirmatively deal with and counteract existing prejudice, racism, and factors that keep more minorities from being hired are admitted in college. There has been shown to be a subtle racism under the surface that serves to inhibit black employement...Affirmative Action has, and continues to be one means to counteract that tendency and ensure minorities are more gainfully employed than they otherwise would be.

That is not racism, that is not discrimination.

That is balancing the prejudice and racism that is still present in America. That is America and Americans trying to help level the already distorted playing field.

PS: I urge everyone to give the rest of the post a good read. I cited a large part of it but there are still some interesting tidbits, some which fill in with details and statistics what I only generalized about in my own comments.

The 'al-Anbar Awakening'...sounds fancy doesn't it?

2007-09-18T21:20:00.000-07:00

Since the testimony of the Petraeus/White House Report on the Surge beginning Sept. 10th two things have proven true about Iraq:

1) At the very least [and I'm leaning towards cherry picking positive data and ignoring negative stats]....the data is often contradictory about civilian and sectarian deaths in Iraq. That's at the very least. Of course that is me being 5 times more generous than I should be because data from all independent sources, from sources with no vested interest in painting a rosy story, tell us that sectarian and civilian deaths nationwide are trending at nearly the same levels, or sometime a little higher.

2) In the al-Anbar Province region [in yellow] of Iraq there has seen a noticeable reduction in violence. The reason for this lies in the fact that some Sunni sheiks and tribal leaders, and formerly insurgent groups attacking American soldiers have decided to instead work with us against their former allies the Sunni group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Surge Progress?
This fact has been touted by war supporters and by some generally ignorant commentators as a clear case of progress for the Surge.

They look at Anbar Province and they see a way of scrapping some success (somehow) from the jaws of defeat.

But the question is: Is this policy good for Iraq? Is this progress?

Dousing The Raging Fires Of Civil War...With Gasoline?
This policy involves the US collaborating with groups who formerly were heavily involved in attacks on US troops not that long ago.

Why the change you might ask? Why are Sunni insurgent groups formerly at odd with us, suddenly eager to work with us against al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Simple: While nobody in Iraq [neither Kurd, Shia, nor even Sunni] liked the Sunni foreign fighters, among the Sunni insurgency a marriage of convenience was made with them in order to deal with what was perceived as the greater evil and threat; The United States.

Many insurgent groups have changed their mind and are making another marriage of convenience [this time with the Americans] in order to eliminate al-Qaeda who they now see as a bigger pest.

Good news for the US and for Iraq right?

Wrong...so horribly wrong.

3 Reasons This Is Wrong And/Or Dangerous

1) We are arming groups (or at the very least giving them money that they use to buy arms) that promise to turn those guns on us once they finish with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

You see, the problem with enemy-of-my-enemy marriages of conveniences is that they are good until, well...it's no longer convenient. The Sunni insurgency already has the American's number. They are well seasoned in how to attack American's. But now they want to get rid of AQI and know the US will provide them the arms and funding to do so.

But these groups have promised [in public no less] to resume attacks on US soldiers once they have finished dealing a sufficient blow on AQI.

One Sunni insurgent leader - Abu Ali - said this US assistance:

Publicly, Abu Ali is grateful for the assistance he and his followers have received from the U.S. military. He predicts he can help clear the entire province of al Qaeda militants within six months if the U.S. Army provides more ammunition and supports insurgent operations with air cover and help from tanks and armored personnel carriers.
But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.
"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

Meaning once they are done with AQI, they will have no need for our cooperation. In other words: We are arming and funding the very groups who will use those very weapons we provided to attack US soldiers in the future. We are being used...

But that's not the worst part of this policy

2) If feeds the specter of full-scale civil war by arming and funding different and competing sides in a civil and ethnic conflict.

The Sunnis in Anbar, or anywhere in Iraq, do not trust or want the Shia-dominated [and US supported] government in Baghdad. They want nothing to do with it.

By funding and arming the Sunni insurgent groups in al-Anbar Province they are effectively funding and arming a rival to the government in Baghdad. The US has propped up and helped the Government in Baghdad, and now is undercutting it by funding and empowering a rival in Anbar province. In essence fueling multiple sides in any civil war. That is counter productive towards the goal of Iraqi unity, and makes it less likely that the central government can exercise any control over all of Iraq outside Shia regions, and even that might not be true (I'll explain in the Roundup). The US is ensuring that Iraq will break into a Sunni region, a Kurdish region in the north, and Shia region in the center and south...and these groups will fight it out in full-scale bloodbath once the US leaves. We should NOT make the bloodbath any worse than its going to be.

The Shias and Kurds are not happy needless to say.

We are pouring gasoline on a fire that was already blazing.

And one of the most frustrating part about this policy is #3

3) It is a totally unneccesary policy if the stated goal is to eliminate AQI and prevent it from taking over Iraq.

First, it is sheer fantasy to believe AQI could ever take over Iraq. It numbers from 1500- 3500 members, which is very small considering that the Sunni insurgency overall is estimated to consist of 25,000 members. They are particularly lethal minority but they simply don't have the numbers to take over even 1 province in Iraq.

Second, the Kurds in the north, and the much more numerous Shia would never allow the Sunni AQI to have a real stronghold in Iraq.

But that's not really the frustrating thing

The most frustrating part is that the only factor that keeps some insurgent groups in league with AQI (and even then many have turned against them) is the US presence in Iraq. Not only does our presence motivate AQI to be in Iraq, it is the reason many Sunni insurgents have (and some continue to) work with AQI.

If we were to leave, there would be no incentive for anyone in Iraq to shelter AQI...they'd most likely be eliminated quite quickly. And in the unlikely case that the Sunnis made another marriage of convenience with AQI to fight the Shias in the full-scale civil war that would follow our exit...well, lets be real. There is NO doubt about who will be the winner...the Shias who are numerically superior.

------------

No Happy Ending Here

Sad isn't it? The US is preventing a full-scale civil war with its presence in one respect, pouring gasoline on it in another respect, but all it can do is delay the eventuality of that war.

If it leaves it will be a bloodbath, if it stays its a smaller bloodbath. But it cannot seem to change that eventuality...But in the meantime, every day it stays in Iraq delaying that war, we lose precious lives, untold billions of money, push our military that much closer to collapse, make us vulnerable to other emerging threats, and hinders our ability to deal with other threats and crisis around the world.

There are no good solutions or policies for the US or Iraq that will ensure anything but some level of violence. But we must leave because that is what is best for the US.

But...it's not fair.

We invaded their country, we destroyed their infrastructure, we messed up the occupation, we allowed the country to go to hell, and now we are going to leave them to a bloody civil war.

It's not fair. Its not fair...

But this is necessary for the United States and ultimately that is who I will think of first. It is not the fault of those who want us to withdraw (many who never wanted us to enter Iraq in the first place), ultimately it is the fault of those who took us to war, and then compounded that initial mistake with a bungled occupation.

Yet I still feel guilty. I suppose, as Americans, we all share blame for the blood shed in Iraq up until now, and for the blood that will be shed when we leave.

You don't understand...I want the US, I want Bush (no matter how much I hate the guy) to pull off a victory, to pull off some miracle that brings the Iraqi's together or at least prevents a bloodbath.

I don't write about my doubts with the Iraq strategy out of some wish to see him fail, I write it because its what I see, and I wont BS you guys out of wishful thinking for a better outcome for Iraqis.

We had an Administration who was and continues to be delusional in all things Iraq and were the masters of wishful thinking, and wishful planning...there is no need for me to add to that delusion if it is not warranted.

-----Roundup------

Expulsion of American Security firms could jeopardize withdrawal plans - Its talking about the withdrawal of the 30,000 Surge troops that Bush recently said could come home by next summer. Why is it in doubt? Because the US relies heavily on "private contractors" in Iraq, otherwise know by its more well know name: mercenaries. Paid-soldier, guns-for-hire etc...

In fact, mercenaries outnumber US troops in Iraq...bet you didn't know that!! (We have 160,000 US troops there right now just as a FYI)

And these mercs are unaccountable to the Iraqi govt or the US government. These aggressive mercs frequently kill civilians and inflame the population, thus making the job that much harder for US soldiers. Everyone, even US soldiers, hate their guts but given the combat troop shortage, its been the US only recourse to keep the occupation going. Iraqi's especially hate their guts.

But now that prominent mercenary company Blackwater might get booted out, it might make it difficult for the US to withdraw those surge troops. With 15 months tours already, I'm not sure how the hell the US can maintain such deployments...An already strained and exhausted military is going to take another hit.

'Help Wanted' Ad Belies Report on Iraq Security - Claims of increased progress and security are looked at in the face of the fact that the US military is seeing the need to hire ever more mercenaries to fulfill certain roles as US troops go off on combat patrols. This excerpt stuck out:

"With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties," according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq.

Increased insurgent activity!? But I thought things were going better? Apprently insurgents are stepping it up, requiring more US troops on the patrol, while mercs take care of the base.

--------

Speaking of al-Anbar Province, apparently the Administration is so happy with the "progress" so far in Sunni areas [read the first half of this post], that they wish to 'expand Anbar model to Iraq Shiites

Fueling different sides of a civil war, and undercutting the central government by fostering and promoting independent Shia forces independent of the Shia-controlled central government.

What's more there is danger to this strategy because of how divided the Shia parts of Iraq are becoming:

On Septmeber 15, powerful Shia militant leader Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew his support for the Iraq government and dealing a blow to the political process and the viability of the central government.

And, security has taken a 'turn for the worst' in the Southern Shia areas -

Security is deteriorating in southern Iraq as rival Shiite militias vying for power have stepped up their attacks after moving out of Baghdad to avoid U.S.-led military operations, according to the latest quarterly Pentagon report on Iraq released yesterday.
"The security environment in southern Iraq took a notable turn for the worse in August" with the assassination of two governors, said the report, which covers June through August. "There may be retaliation and an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the South," it said, whereas previously the violence was centered in the main southern city of Basra.

Even Shias are beginning to fight amonst themselves. Which leaves us to this question: Which Shias are we going to support in our expansion of the Anbar model?

You see how complicated this is getting? Because certain groups like Al-Sadr's are very nationalistic and very anti-American. Could we expect increasing intra-sectarian violence? Tread carefully...

The growing violence in the south is one factor making it unlikely that Iraq's leaders -- hampered by a "zero sum" mentality -- will make headway in the fall on key political resolutions, the report concluded. "In the short term, Iraqi political leaders will likely be less concerned about reconciliation than with consolidating power and posturing for a future power struggle," it said.

This Pentagon report, different from the Petraeus report of Sept. 10, is a lot more pessimistic about the security situation and the political progress that the surge was supposed enable. [I will add that a its sectarian violence figures is based on the same methodology as the Petraeus report so I'm still skeptical about its violence figures]

And note the last sentence about how Iraqi political leaders are less concerned with reconciliation than with consolidating power for a future power struggle. Progress will only come from the political process, not the military. Political progress will help the security situation, not the other way around.

It's clear that Iraqi political leaders are not interested (or at least not expecting) in political progress because they know what's coming: The future power struggle. The Iraqi politicians are preparing for what the Administration still fails to acknowledge as inevitable: The civil war.

If they are planning for civil war, if they are not interested in reconciliation then what is left? If there is no reconciliation there is only conflict.

Like I said earlier, I don't BS you. If I say that I think civil war is inevitable, it's because I see some indications for it (like this one) that tell me that the opposing parties are not interested in having a political reconciliation...and that leaves only one choice...

So long folks, I'll be back from Chicago on Sunday. A vacation from news might do me some good.

One of Those Times I Hate To Be Right

2007-09-08T13:04:00.000-07:00

The Prediction

Did I call it? Or did I muthafuckin' call it?

Back in July 17, shortly after the release of the interim progress report on the Surge I said this:

Come on!! Who actually believes that any report coming from the Bush Administration this September will say anything but what they feel is necessary to say in order to maintain (and in this case further escalate) our presence in Iraq.

Like the flawed and dishonest Iraq Progress report released this past week, the report in September will fudge figures, distort reality, and lower the bar of what is 'progress' in order to claim that there is some progress due to their surge (where there is actually none).

They will then claim that these optimistic signs of progress prove that the surge is making progress in Iraq, and that they will say is why they will need an 'even bigger surge' to make even bigger gains.

*sigh* It appears we live with a government whose governing philosophy is based around the idea of "when your stuck in a ditch, keep digging"

In other subsequent posts I've mentioned that this "progress" they will claim will be used by those "wavering Republicans" to continue supporting the war. Idiots in the press and in the Democratic Party wrongfully believed that once the report came in September, it would show little progress and force Republicans to vote against the war....WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

The mistake they made was assuming that they would not fudge the September report in the same way that they fudged the July report.

I wrote this one August 15, 2007 . Pay careful attention to my prediction

Due around mid-September is a final progress report on the current 'surge ' strategy in Iraq. Now, it was billed as a report not only written by the military itself, but as the report of the last person who still seems to hold credibility with Congress - General Petraeus. Me, being me, was always suspicious about the report because as so full of integrity as Gen. Petraeus is reported to be he is just a General who works at the discretion of the President. He is tasked with implementing policy the President wants, whatever he thinks. I'm a little skeptical of how credible Petraeus will be although it might be completely moot whether he is or not (I'll tell you why later in this post) I always believed that the September report would purport to say that there IS progress even if there are some problems and that we should continue in Iraq: Republicans waverers who keep saying 'lets wait till the September report' will stop wavering. And they will 'give the strategy more time to work' and Democrats will be able to get less votes for any withdrawal resolution in Congress. I still believe this will happen.

Well, the propaganda (and lies) being repeated continuously, and bought hook-line-and-sinker, is that the surge has created progress.

For the love of God, the "respectable" General Petraeus went to Australia and pulled the biggest lie out of his ass: He made the absurd claim that there has been a 75% drop in ethnic and sectarian violence since the surge began!

You have got to be kidding me!?

And how have the Republicans responded to these fudged figures (and I will show why they are fudged)?

They declare "Iraq withdrawal is now off the table":

Leading Republicans in Congress on Thursday declared that troop withdrawal legislation should be scrapped because the United States has made significant progress in the Iraq War, just as Democrats were resuming efforts to bring soldiers home. "It should be off the table," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said of Democratic attempts to pass legislation to force President George W. Bush to withdraw some of the 168,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and wind down the combat mission there.
The Republican hardened stance followed months of speculation that September could usher in cooperation with Democrats on trying to craft a new Iraq policy. In recent months a small but growing number of Republicans have said it is time to develop a bipartisan strategy to bring troops home. (SNIP)
But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters of "significant progress in Iraq," and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the 4-1/2-year war effort was "finally paying dividends."

"We're at a crossroads. Pour it on. Seize the moment ... take withdrawal off the table," said Graham, who last month served in Iraq as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force reserves.

Next week Congress will hear from U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Both are expected to report significant military progress in Baghdad since the start of a troop surge last January.

Did I call it or did I freakin' call it?

-----

Do The Facts Fit the Propaganda?

Now, maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe I'm too cynical. Perhaps I've let my distrust of this Administration, its history of deceit....the fact that they fudge numbers all the time on everything from global warming data to deficit figures....well that they've falsified and fudged the July Surge report too....

...You know what these guys don't have credibility!! Screw that!

But, its not enough to rightfully point out their lack of credibility and their history of willingness to lie and distort figures to serve their goals; Lets actually examine if their claims are true

Has the Surge Succeeded in Bringing Progress?

Lets start with the absurd claim by the "honorable" General Petraeus that there has been a 75% drop due to the Surge.

Now, 75% is a huge number for violence to drop...one would almost expect things to look vastly different if it had really dropped that much. I haven't noticed that much of a change but who knows that could just be a matter of perception...so lets see what the actual stats say.

Associated Press, August 25, 2007

This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

I'll add that it is hard to make comparisons from "peak levels" because certain seasons are more violent than others and so it is best to compare violence as compared to the same time the previous year. So, in that sense it is a little misleading to compare it to "peak levels." That's why the bolded part is a much better gauge than the leading part of the sentence that said its down from "peak levels."

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings - the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

Many militants simply fled the capital (as expected), and there initially was a reduction in violence in Baghdad as violence in other parts of Baghdad where those militants fled to increased.

But I did only say "initially": As the AP's reports, its own statistics are now showing that the rate of killlings is at the same percentage as a year ago. And those are apples-to-apples comparisons (by same time last year).

In other words, violence has increased outside Baghdad, and stayed the same in Baghdad despite the Surge.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.

That 'headway' is hardly headway in my opinion...

In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable.

The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings - largely the work of Shiite death squads.

The figures are considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count.

The findings include:

- Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year - an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year.

- Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. AP reporting accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006. The United Nations and other sources placed the 2006 toll far higher.

- Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.

-According to the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, the number of displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since the start of the year, from 447,337 on Jan. 1 to 1.14 million on July 31.

However, Brig. Gen. Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said violence in Iraq ``has continued to decline and is at the lowest level since June 2006.''

He offered no statistics to back his claim.....

'And he offered no statistics to back his claim'!?

With an Administration that would be is desperate to give good news, don't you think they would be jumping at the change to provide good data if they had it?

They'd be throwing it in everyones face and all over the news but...they aren't. Instead they make claims with no proof and pleas to "just believe it" in essence. Plus the news organizations who are compiling the data are painting a much darker picture. Smells real fishy...

And the problem isn't only Baghdad and Central Iraq, the south is exploding too as different Shia groups also battle amongst themselves.

But a huge problem also looms in the south, the center of Shiite political and spiritual influence and the site of Iraq's main oil fields.

There are daily gunbattles between the Mahdi Army militia - loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the powerhouse Shiite political party that controls most of the bureaucracy and police forces in southern Iraq.

This month, the governors of two southern provinces loyal to the Supreme Islamic Council were killed in roadside bombings.

The clashes are expected to grow more intense as Britain draws downs its forces in southern Iraq over the coming months. The effect of the shrinking British presence is already being felt, said Cordesman in an assessment released Aug. 22.

``The end result was to turn the four provinces in southeastern Iraq over to feuding Shiite factions whose actions were mixed with corruption, extortion and links to criminal activities,'' he wrote

There is a good reason too note this. One not only because it points to increasing violence in Iraq, but because violence such as this is not counted as sectarian violence in Iraq, thus skewing those military numbers very much lower.

------------

Fudging The Numbers

One again, the Pentagon and the Administrations are fudging the numbers that go in their reports to paint a rosier picture than is deserved:

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.....
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory....
Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

I'll do into the GAO (General Accountability Office) Report later. So what problems did the U.S. officers have with the GAO, the CIA and DIA's (Defense Intelligence Agency) methodology? That they didn't put up with this bullshit:

Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

You see the problem in that such a....well, retarded manner of differentiating criminal violence from sectarian violence naturally will drastically undercount the numbers dead from sectarian violence.

Remember that I asked you to keep the Shia vs. Shia violence in mind? Well here is why: [from same article]

According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."
Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

Did you get that? Shia vs. Shia (and Sunni vs. Sunni) violence is not added in the total for sectarian violence (although its supposed to because such fighting is part of a civil war), and the reason is because it's "hard to track". So they don't even mention it!! And then they can claim violence is down because they are not reporting substantial types of violence in their final tallies!

Plus they do not count the violence inflicted [on Sunni's, Shia's or anyone] by the Sunni groups who have recently decided to side with the US against al-Qaeda even though these groups are still players in the civil war, and will resume taking up arms against the US when it has weakened al-Qaeda. And these groups are part of the civil war for control of Iraq against Shias, Kurds and other Sunnis...yet their violence is not counted.

Want more? Apparently they also do not include car-bombs in the statistics of violence

The reason why will astounded me:

Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

Others, however, say that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population—one of the surge's main goals.

We don't count them because we will hand those bombers a victory if we do count them!? WTF!? Jeez, why should any violence in Iraq be counted if it will just give those killers a 'victory"?

Shoot, why did they claim a 75% drop in violence when they could have claimed a 100% drop in one?

Yet again, statistics are fudged and the counting of violence manipulate in a manner that seems to reduce the total numbers of violence reported. Clever...and deceptive.

Are you getting a better understanding how the military came to that "75% reduction" and why it is so at odd compared to everyone else's numbers?

-------

Other Factors of "Success" for the Surge

So clearly the military aspect of the Surge has failed which is funny because it is about the only part of the Surge that administration supporters and conservative hawks have proclaimed was a success. We know better though...

It's also funny because, at the outset, the "Surge" was supposed to achieve a more secure and peaceful environment through increased troop levels, in order to create a better environment for Iraqi politicians and groups to make political progress and gains for peace.

Has that happened: No.

So in that sense, even if it where true (and its not) that the surge has created some short term tactical progress, it is irrelevant because it has failed to bring about the political progress from Iraqi's that the Surge was supposed to help do.

In other words, a complete failure, so says the GAO report:

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.
The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker...

"While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."
"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."

In other words if they did not cherry-pick positive indicators, eliminated negative-indicators from the final count. But this Admin has no compunctions with manipulating numbers to get the answers and results they want. And that's not just with Iraq.

I'll add that 3 out of 18 benchmarks is actually less than what the July Surge report showed when they showed 8 out of 18 were met. And even then (if you follow the link), I showed that even those 8 they claimed as success were not.

And what do you know: Apparently, even those 3 from the current GAO report have downsides as the GAO itself noted as well. Now that is not exactly a good assessment.

Surprisingly, most Americans are on their guard [Wash.Post/ABC News Poll] about the September Report due to be released on Tuesday September 11 (God, do those people have no shame?).

Most expect it to be manipulated and deceitful, and vast majorities say that even if the Admin reports progress, it would make no difference in making them support the war. Good.

Those Americans are basing it on a feeling (and I'm proud of them for that), but you who have read this far into this post know just how deceitful the conclusion to the September report will be.

There are tons of links there for you if you ever need a way to prove to others what a crock the report is...use them, direct them here...whatever. I'm just trying to do my part and hopefully I can help just one person do their part as well.

---------

Links I Didn't Use But For Reference

Letter to Congress demanding a sound counting of Iraq civilian casualties - From the National Security Network. A group of national security thinkers and practitioners have written a letter that expresses doubts - and reasons for them - of the new statistics.

Iraq stats 2006: The UN vs. the Iraqi Govt. - From TPMuckracker. They compile the UN's data and compare it to the Iraqi govts numbers. Not surprisingly, the Iraqi governments numbers were a lot lower.

The Middle East Update Part I: Iran

2007-09-05T09:18:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile I know. I blame the Nintendo and the Wii and the game Metroid Prime 3 for being so damn hard to put down. lol (but I'm not kidding!!)

One of the sources I go to daily for news - Rawstory - has done a lot of its own original reporting and investigating lately regarding Iran. [And by lately, I mean over the past two weeks]

What they have turned out are a lot of rumors and pieces of investigative journalism that give us some reason to be worried about the Cheney camp in the White House getting their way (or waiting for some intel connecting Iran to Iraq attacks in order to use it as an excuse for strikes against Iran)

Rawstory

Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months -

Fox News asked former CIA field officer Bob Baer on Tuesday whether the US is "gearing up for a military strike on Iran." Baer has written a column for Time indicating that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months.
"I've taken an informal poll inside the government," Baer told Fox. "The feeling is we will hit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." His Time column also suggested that "as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities."

Baer explained that what his sources anticipate is "not exactly a war." He said the administration is convinced "that the Iranians are interfering in Iraq and the rest of the Gulf" but that "if there is an attack on Iran it would be very quick, it would be a warning."

"We won't see American troops cross the border. ... If this is going to happen, it's going to happen very quickly and it's going to surprise a lot of people," said Baer. "I hope I'm wrong frankly, but we're going to see."

However reliable Robert Baer has been in the past, and we definitely should take his warnings serious, these are just rumors so far. I've seen plenty of similar warnings that have not panned out. But as we get closer and closer to the end of the Bush Administration the chance only increases for strikes against Iran.

This administration does truly sees Iran as a grave threat and they do not trust any future administration (Republican or Democrat) to "deal with" Iran correctly. And one doesn't have to guess that hard what "correctly" means to them!

Further, the situation is a little different today. Today they seem have stepped up their case for rationalizing strikes in Iran from "They are trying to build nuclear weapons" (which wasn't moving anyone) to "they are helping insurgents and militias kill US soldiers and interfering in Iraq" (which is more provocative, but even here I doubt most Americans will support ANY Iran strike). They still need a "trigger" though

The Bush Administration expects a quick war, to which I say: "Are you stupid?! Think this through"

Yes, your strikes will be quick but...what about Iranian retaliation? Or is the US assuming that Iran will just lay down and take it? They have agents, and reach around the world through covert actors and they can hurt US interests globally. Plus, Iran is a much bigger nation with a much more sophisticated military (that would still likely get slaughtered in a conventional fight), and it is right next door to Iraq. If you think Iran is interfering in Iraq now, imagine the carnage they can sow if they were so inclined.

Adding that, one of the main goals for the Neoconservative hawks is for a regime change in Iran and to eliminate it as a power in the middle east region. But, a strike on Iran will only galvanize the support of the Iranian public behind the ultra-conservative and deeply unpopular presidency of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (think about how the 9/11 attacks rallied the American people behind the previously unpopular Bush presidency).

Neoconservative do not seem to think beyond the actual strikes and the "message" it would send. They don't seem to ever think about what comes next: the consequences, the counter-strikes, the world reaction, how it will strengthen the grip on power in Iran of President Ahmedinejad etc...It's enough to drive you nuts!

But lets get back to that "trigger" for war that Cheney and the hawks in the Administration are desperately looking for.

In an effort to build congressional and Pentagon support for military options against Iran, the Bush administration has shifted from its earlier strategy of building a case based on an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program to one invoking improvised explosive devices (IEDs) purportedly manufactured in Iran that are killing US soldiers in Iraq.

According to officials – including two former Central Intelligence Agency case officers with experience in the Middle East – the administration believes that by focusing on the alleged ties between IEDs and Iran, they can link the Iranian government directly to attacks on US forces in Iraq.

Read the whole thing. If you want to get a sense what current and former intelligence officials think about the prospects and motivations behind the Bush Administrations current Iran strategy. None seem to be of the opinion that strikes in Iran are not the ultimate goal of this administration.

I'll add, as does the article, that there is nothing tying those IED's to Iran directly. At least nothing I've seen.

------

But what would a strike against Iran look like? Would it be limited to WMD sites or to critically wounding Iran as a regional power and destabilizing the regime?

The following study seems to point to the later: [study cited by Rawstory]

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.
The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power.

What a horrible prospect. Charging headlong into war that I see escalating into an ugly mess where Iran, overwhelmed by the US's conventional forces, resorts to irregular and terrorist tactics at US interests and targets globally. Just like many of Iraq's former solders resorted to asymmetrical tactics once overwhelmed by conventional US force. We call many of those former Iraqi soldiers "insurgents" now.

Iran's reach may be more global than Iraq's though. One of the first targets will likely be oil and fuel targets.

But not only is it foolhardy, it's...immoral. Think about it: To eliminate Iran as a strategic competitor in the region it may just critically wound the Iranian regime (sowing chaos), destroy road and fuel infrastructure and much more.

The "collateral damage" may be significant although the long-term "collateral damage" may be more significant.

1) A radicalized Iranian populace that will rally to aid of the regime
2) A destroyed economy and physical infrastructure that will destroy the livelihood of all people in Iran by destroying its economy and all means for it to go on with business as usual. This will feed the chaos.

We will punish and hurt the Iranian people, you know, the very same people those cynical ass Neoconservatives claim to want to help by "liberating" them from the "tyranny of the mullahs." But your motives become a little suspect when you want to reduce the country they live in to a "weak or failed state."

In other words a state so weak that it cannot exercise any control over its territory. Dumbed down even more: A state where the government cannot police or keep order in its own country, cannot provide for its people (because it cannot). Say hello to warlords, strong-men, and violence. Then again, some of the pressure towards total chaos may be mitigated if the Iranian people rally to support their regime. In that case, its already-bad economy will still be destroyed and its peoples lives still destroyed so its still not shits and giggles.

These neocons can give a damn about the Iranian people though. They cynically use them as props and tools to put a "nice" face on their true goals: Eliminating any and all regional competition for power, even before it emerges.

Or if not cynically, than its obvious that their thirst for power is much more powerful than their desire for democracy.

-----

Here's something more recent and the source is someone in the government as opposed to a study using open-source information:

Pentagon '3 day Blits Plan' (London Times)

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

So what is it?: Surgical strikes on nuclear facilities, destroying its military as well, or complete crippling? Though, destroying its military will probably not have the desired effect (regime change) if the people rally behind the regime against US aggression.

-----

So what is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad thinking about the possibilities of a strike in Iran? Apparently he's not so worried:

TEHRAN: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday dismissed the chance of a US attack against Iran as impossible, saying that Washington already had enough trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There is in no way the possibility of such an attack by the United States. Even if they take such a decision they cannot implement it," he told a news conference. "They have to solve the question of Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Politicians do not deal with imaginary things. They deal with reality and this is propaganda. This (an attack) is not on the agenda of US officials and it cannot be," he said.

You know, he makes a point that I'm sure plenty of us have made in the past. The US is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, and also still contends with Afghanistan; how could it possibly think to get itself into more dookie (to use the technical term).

But, with this President...you just cannot assume that this logic will work. Prior to war with Iraq, I could not imagine how an invasion made sense because it just didn't make sense: The case for WMD's seemed weak (to those who paid attention), Iraq was successfully contained and was no longer a threat to his neighbors...why would he invade and get himself into a situation where there would be violence and resistance to our presence we thought.

All I have to say to Ahmedinejad: Don't let your logic, however sound it may be in most situations, lead you to discount out of hand the possibility of this President ordering strikes in your county. He's a president with nothing to lose (he's already failed in Iraq), everything to gain from "success," and a president who has less than two year left in office and so won't put up with the consequences of his actions for very long.

Who knows whether Bush will go all the way but I know one thing:

Don't underestimate his propensity for stupid...and I mean that in all seriousness.

The Fix Is In!! Conventional Wisdom Is Convinced That the Surge Has Brought Progress!

2007-08-25T14:24:00.001-07:00

So the fix is in and many in the media and in the elite Washington establishment are buying into (and helping craft) the new 'conventional wisdom.'

The new conventional wisdom is that: while there are problems still in Iraq, the Surge has reduced the violence, improved the security situation, and created some progress.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

Is this view justified? Well, most of you will know my answer, based on the tenor of the post so far. And you would be right...

The success of the Surge is a big load of BS

In previous posts I detailed more or less the same thing. Specifically, I attacked the credibility of the upcoming Surge Progress Report due in September. It's lack of credibility, and the history of the administration of fudging numbers to claim "progress" when there is in fact none.

This time I will try not so much to attack the credibility of the administration (its like beating a dead horse at this point), but to show you the numbers themselves...and let those do the actual talking.

[The following figures where compiled by Kevin Drum using figures and statistics from the Brooking Institutions 'Iraq Index.' This index has tracked security and infrastructure figures in the post-Saddam era of Iraq]

Note: Some may ask why compare figures from the same time in different years (Jan 06 vs. Jan 07), as opposed to comparing figures from nearby months (Jun 07 vs. Jul 07)? The reason is that a lot of the fighting often fluctuates along seasonal lines. Some seasons, whether for weather, or other practical reasons, are more violent than other times of the year. It's sometimes misleading to, say, compare figures from winter and spring, or even from different months because of these differences. That is why most comparisons are done with statistics gathered from the same time of the year.

Anyways, lets go to the Iraq Stats and see how dismal the actual outlook is:

Violence Metrics

June/July
2006

June/July
2007

Change

Iraqi Military and Police Killed

349

429

Up 23%

Multiple Fatality Bombings

110

82

Down 25%

# Killed in Mult. Fatality Bombings

885

1,053

Up 19%

Iraqi Civilians Killed
(All violent causes)

6,739

5,300

Hard to say¹

U.S. Troop Fatalities

104

187

Up 80%

U.S. Troops Wounded

983

1,423

Up 45%

Size of Insurgency

20,000+

~70,000²

Up ~250%

Attacks on Oil and Gas Pipelines

8

14³

Up 75%

¹Methodology changed dramatically between 2006 and 2007, so numbers are highly suspect.
²Number is for March 2007.
³Numbers are for June only. No July numbers are available.

Infrastructure Metrics

June/July
2006

June/July
2007

Change

Diesel Fuel Available

26.7 Ml

20.7 Ml

Down 22%

Kerosene Available

7.08 Ml

6.3 Ml

Down 11%

Gasoline Available

29.4 Ml

22.2 Ml

Down 24%

LPG Available

4,936 tons

4,932 tons

Down 0.1%

Electricity Generated

8,800 Mwatts

8,420 Mwatts

Down 4%

Hours Electricity Per Day

11.7

10.1⁴

Down ~14%

⁴No numbers available for June/July. Figure is extrapolated from May and August numbers.

Those are some pretty sorry numbers for a Surge, much less one that is now supposedly making progress like the Kool-Aid drinkers in the press corp now seem to believe. Violence is up by most important metrics measuring violence, and metrics measuring reconstruction show that the situation for Iraqi civilians is getting worse.

Further, there is some indication that more Iraqis have been fleeing their homes since the Surge began.

Statistics collected by one of the two humanitarian groups, the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, indicate that the total number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000, since the buildup started in February.

One way that the administration may try and claim progress is by pointing to some decreases in certain provinces...while ignoring increases in others [think: Whack-a-mole].

Further some of the gains in certain provinces is due to Sunni insurgent groups who have cracked down on Al-Qaeda in Iraq in their - mostly Sunni - provinces. The problem here is that, while it is good news that these Sunni groups are cracking down on Al-Qaeda...well, those same groups have and will continue to kill American forces, and the Shia-dominated Iraq central government when Al-Qaeda in Iraq is suitably disabled.

This is not some optimistic point that US officials should make and the US should stop arming those Sunni groups.

The enemy of your enemy is not your damn friend in this case!! Those arms and weapons we are showering on formerly hostile groups will soon find American soldiers and Iraqi government targets in their cross hairs. For the love of God stop arming them!

The Public

While many in the media, and many in the Washington Establishment may have been snookered by the administration and its pro-war supporters, the American public is rightfully much more skeptical about any report from this administration telling them things are getting better.

From CNN, we learn that most think the Administration will paint a rosier picture than is justified:

A majority of Americans don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind, according to a new poll...(snip)

But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

What makes it interesting is that, even among those who think Surge is making progress (irrespective of the report or how accurate it is) [47 % - pretty sizable minority!], and those who do trust that the report will be accurate [43%]....It does not change the mind of most Americans, who still want the US to leave Iraq.

The poll indicates that most of America's mind is made up about the war -- 72 percent said the report will have no effect on their view of the war.
Of those opposed to the war, 47 percent said Petreaus' report could not change their mind while 17 percent said it could.

This poll gives me some optimism. The American public has usually been ahead of the Washington Establishment and the Media in terms of the war. But the pundits and politicians are often way behind and I worry that they will vote to continue the war (give the surge and the president 'another chance' and a 'few more months') when this BS progress report is released in September.

I fear even some Democrats will be fooled or will feel pressure to vote against measures ending the war, although I mostly fear that Republican "Waverers" will jump back on Bush-boys boat and support the war in the war in the wake of the report.

So let me take that back...the poll gives me some optimism...then other knowledge seeps in and crushes that optimism.

The Soldiers

A group of active non-commissioned officers (i.e. non-coms, NCO...from the ranks of 'private' to the highest 'sergeant' ranks) recently wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times that is anything but kind to the Iraq mission and the 'surge'.

The Op-Ed

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

They even mention the mistake of arming Sunni insurgents

Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

Like I said earlier in the post: "For the love of God stop arming them!!" These soldiers obviously understand that those very Sunni groups will soon take up arms against the government (and US if we are still there). All we are doing (basically) is arming multiple and opposing sides of a civil war. That is definitely not a good idea and recipe for increased violence. Its like fighting a fire by dousing it with gasoline and trying to smother it with pieces of dry wood and tinder.

Anyways there's more, give it a good read.

The Top General

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff plays a very special role in shaping US policy. The role and task for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is specific:

To provide independent and thoughtful advice on military matters to the President of the United States and to other members of the National Security Council. And to make known the independent view of those in the uniformed military (and NOT the civilian - and often political - leadership of the military such as from the Secretary of Defenses' Office and staff).

In other words this is a position in which independence advice (often telling the president what he might not want to hear) is supposed to be one of the duties of the position.

It hasn't always worked out that way of course, especially during the run up to the war in Iraq when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was completely controlled and dominated by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But this is what the position is about in theory.

Our current (and outgoing) Joint Chiefs Chairman, Marine Corp. General Peter Pace is causing a bit of a stir because of indications that he will suggest that the US withdraw half of US troops in Iraq, contrary to the current Administration policy of a "surge" (extra troops).

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.

A little more:

Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it.

According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Pace is expected to offer his advice privately instead of issuing a formal report. Still, the position of Pace and the Joint Chiefs could add weight to that of Bush administration critics, including Democratic presidential candidates, that the U.S. force should be reduced.

President Bush didn't listen to Pace when he initially tried to warn him against a "surge" (I don't think the uniformed military was thrilled about that idea), but even Pace had to relent when it became clear that Bush was adamant.

I see no reason to believe that President Bush will heed the advice of his top General in this case either. Because, for all his talk about listening to his generals...he actually only listens to generals and people who tell him what he wants to hear or tell him things that conform with what he already believes to be true. [If you are reading this Jose: You were supposed to have read my big research paper...so you know I'm not making that assertion from facts I pulled out of my ass. And if you didn't read it...well get on it!! lol]

------

I still have 5 more links and articles to share, but I don't quite feel like doing a roundup at this point since I'm going to get picked up to watch a UFC pay-per-view thing. Hopefully tomorrow I can finish up (and add a few of Sundays news articles).

'till then, enjoy the damn "America to the Rescue" YouTube video on my profile...hilarious and educational!

America to the Rescue!!!

2007-08-24T13:53:00.000-07:00

Hillarious!! I like the way he traces the mistakes in our mideast policy back to the 80's. That's why I watch every episode! (the next day usually...I like Futurama and that come only once a day)

The September Report on the 'Surge' Will Be a Big Crock!!

2007-08-15T19:54:00.000-07:00

Due around mid-September is a final progress report on the current 'surge ' strategy in Iraq.

Now, it was billed as a report not only written by the military itself, but as the report of the last person who still seems to hold credibility with Congress - General Petraeus.

Me, being me, was always suspicious about the report because as so full of integrity as Gen. Petraeus is reported to be he is just a General who works at the discretion of the President. He is tasked with implementing policy the President wants, whatever he thinks. I'm a little skeptical of how credible Petraeus will be although it might be completely moot whether he is or not (I'll tell you why later in this post)

I always believed that the September report would purport to say that there IS progress even if there are some problems and that we should continue in Iraq: Republicans waverers who keep saying 'lets wait till the September report' will stop wavering.

And they will 'give the strategy more time to work' and Democrats will be able to get less votes for any withdrawal resolution in Congress. I still believe this will happen.

Back on July 17, 2007 I said this shortly after the interim July surge progress report:

Come on!! Who actually believes that any report coming from the Bush Administration this September will say anything but what they feel is necessary to say in order to maintain (and in this case further escalate) our presence in Iraq.

Like the flawed and dishonest Iraq Progress report released this past week, the report in September will fudge figures, distort reality, and lower the bar of what is 'progress' in order to claim that there is some progress due to their surge (where there is actually none).

They will then claim that these optimistic signs of progress prove that the surge is making progress in Iraq, and that they will say is why they will need an 'even bigger surge' to make even bigger gains.

*sigh* It appears we live with a government whose governing philosophy is based around the idea of "when your stuck in a ditch, keep digging"

The only thing I am not so sure about is whether they plan on escalating the surge after September.

First, I'm not exactly sure they CAN: Those troops whose tours they extended to 15-months have to be rotated out, so I'm not sure how they can bring even more troops in. They may just decide to shift troops around depending on the province.

But, what I am still sure about is that the report will be used as an cudgel against Democrats and Republicans who say we should withdraw: "See there is some progress!! We must stay and keep it going or it was for nothing" Republican withdrawal waverers will have a reason to stick with the war and we'll be stuck with this war until a new president enters 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

White House Ghostwriters

Except, guess what? It turns out that this September Surge Progress report by Gen. Petraeus will not be written by General Petraeus or anyone in the military - It will be written completely by the White House staff.

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

In other words: Petraeus can say what he wants, and recommend what he wants to his hearts content but ultimately it is up to the White House to make and include everything in the report. A politicized report from the White House would not exactly be unusual.

But you may be thinking "well what if he is dutifully listening to the advise of his generals"?

To which I would say: "He only listens to generals when they tell him what they want to hear. When generals [In this case the Joint Chiefs of Staff] recommended against the surge, he didn't listen. When they warned the president before the war that he would need many more troops, he didn't listen. When the CIA warned and the intelligence community warned that post-invasion Iraq would be full of trouble and that there should be planning for it, he didn't listen.

This White House has a history of hearing only what they want to hear and listening to things that they want to listen to. And this, added to the fact that the White House is writing the report, lead me to believe that the report will paint an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq.

It has no credibility, and I'm basing that on their history of fudging reports about Iraq (about everything), one just recently in July.

Want an even more recent example of this Administration fudging numbers (or plain lying) to claim its surge is making progress:

How's today (August 15, 2007) for recent?

And while top U.S. officials insist that 50 percent of the capital is now under effective U.S. or government control, compared with 8 percent in February, statistics indicate that the improvement in violence is at best mixed.
U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim.
The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same.

These U.S. officials have the balls to put out press releases that completely lie...It's good that McClatchy News Service had the damn balls to mention that, well...their numbers sound like complete BS.

The article also says this:

Despite U.S. claims that violence is down in the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officers are offering a bleak picture of Iraq’s future, saying they’ve yet to see any signs of reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Muslims despite the drop in violence.
Without reconciliation, the military officers say, any decline in violence will be temporary and bloodshed could return to previous levels as soon as the U.S. military cuts back its campaign against insurgent attacks.

Lets put this together: 1) US officials are claiming reduced violence...but its not exactly checking out...and they aren't giving any numbers to back it up....but those who are keeping tabs say its BS

2) US military officials are saying that this "drop in violence" (that doesn't exist) is showing no signs of bringing a Sunni/Shia reconciliation necessary to keep the violence from going back up again. In other words: Even IF you assume their BS is true, it's not helping to achieve the ultimate goal of the "surge," which was to create a more peaceful security situation to allow Sunnis and Shias in Iraq to come together and work their problems out politically.

Needless to say that hasn't happened. In fact, last I hear, all Sunni cabinet ministers have completely withdrawn from the Shia-dominated Iraq government. I'd call that "anti-progress."

I've had quite a few posts that detail other instances of Bush BS, and 'Surge' progress BS so I'm not basing this on one event.

There is a history here and I have no reason to believe that it will be different this time around.

This September Report will be a completely White House-written piece of crock and the "Kewl Kidz" in the Washington Media will eat it up hook, line, and sinker.

My only hope is that Petraeus, in his testimony to Congress when the report is released will let slip a little more reality to Congress that what is found in his boss' report.

If he, indeed, really is still a man of integrity.

PS: Roundup post for tomorrow

Our Exhausted Military

2007-08-12T18:32:00.000-07:00

Came across this very dispiriting article in the 'Guardian Unlimited' this morning about the fatigue and exhaustion gripping the US military. If you read only one article today, read this one. Talking about the ill-effects of the decision to invade Iraq, the strain it put on our military has always been one of the things we bring up.

But, this article brought home how fatigued and degraded our military has become due to the Iraq occupation in a manner that was hard to imagine before.

Excerpts:

Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis (snip)...
Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.
Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

That last part is what makes this so...dispiriting. If your PR people...The people helping to put the positive spin on the Iraq war, are saying these things...well.

Remember, these are the soldiers and people who are backing up the rosy assertions of 'progress' supposedly happening because of the much vaunted 'surge.' Their own PR guys in private are not buying the BS that they are ordered to tell the media and the world.

This should make it crystal clear that we should take all those false proclamation of 'progress' that we are starting to hear, with the grain of salt most of us probably already where. [And if you've been reading me you know I've devoted a few blog posts to questioning the 'progress' of the 'surge']

They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'(snip)
A week later, in the northern city of Mosul, an officer talks privately. 'We're plodding through this,' he says after another patrol and another ambush in the city centre. 'I don't know how much more plodding we've got left in us.'
When the soldiers talk like this there is resignation. There is a corrosive anger, too, that bubbles out, like the words pouring unbidden from a chaplain's assistant who has come to bless a patrol. 'Why don't you tell the truth? Why don't you journalists write that this army is exhausted?'(snip)..

And it's not just that that the multiple 15-month tours, the lack of a clear mission or goal, or the daily violence they encounter that is simply exhausting a few soldiers. This war is effecting the overall readiness and effectiveness of our armed forces. This next excerpt drives this point home:

The anecdotal evidence on the ground confirms what others - prominent among them General Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State - have been insisting for months now: that the US army is 'about broken'. Only a third of the regular army's brigades now qualify as combat-ready. Officers educated at the elite West Point academy are leaving at a rate not seen in 30 years, with the consequence that the US army has a shortfall of 3,000 commissioned officers - and the problem is expected to worsen.
And it is not only the soldiers that are worn out. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the destruction, or wearing out, of 40 per cent of the US army's equipment, totalling at a recent count $212bn (£105bn).

The article talks about increases in desertions and absenteeism, about the lowering of standards of enlistment (scraping the bottom of the barrel), about increasing the age of enlistment all to maintain this ultimately unsustainable war stocked with soldiers.

And one of the scary things is...the situation is getting so desperate that the big 'D-word' is coming up as a possible option, when, before, to even mention it as a possibility would have caused officials in the Pentagon and White House to roll their eyes.

The Draft

'War tsar' calls for return of the draft to take the strain
America's 'war tsar' has called for the nation's political leaders to consider bringing back the draft to help a military exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a radio interview, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said the option had always been open to boost America's all-volunteer army by drafting in young men in the same way as happened in Vietnam. 'I think it makes sense to consider it,' he said. Lute was appointed 'war tsar' earlier this year after President Bush decided a single figure was needed to oversee the nation's military efforts abroad.
Rumours of a return to the draft have long circulated in military circles as the pressure from fighting two large conflicts at the same time builds on America's forces. However, politically it would be extremely difficult to achieve, especially for any leader hoping to be elected in 2008. Bush has previously ruled out the suggestion as unnecessary.
Lute, however, said the war was causing stress to military families and, as a result, was having an impact on levels of re-enlistment. 'This kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living-room conversations within these families. Ultimately the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions,' he said.

Disturbing indeed, and such a policy would effect me [I am draft age after all]. Although, in my opinion such a policy would be extremely unlikely. Not even Republicans in Congress would support the reinstatement of the draft. And on that point I hope I am right.

The Ill-Effects of the Iraq Invasion/Occupation

This war is stretching our armed forces to the point of breaking and and to the point where some military officials warn political leaders to keep their minds open to a draft, yet there are still those who would wish to extend our involvement in Iraq indefinitely. Why?!

For the sake of our armed forces, for the sake of the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives every day doing their jobs, lets bring them home. Lets bring them home as soon as possible. Lets end this long, horrendous national nightmare!

Because, lets be frank, as much as I and others dislike this war and its continuance...we are not the one living in constant danger of snippers or of IED's. We are not the ones on the front line having to execute the awful policies and prerogatives of their idiot leadership in Washington. This is real for them in a way that I, and other who've never served in Iraq could ever hope to understand.

Lets play our role and help bring about the end to this misadventure.

For them

-------

Roundup 8/12/07

I know I've been pretty inconsistent with the whole blogging thing. You should continue to expect that for at least the next couple weeks. Note: A lot of these articles of from as long as 5 days ago (I believe)...yeah, I've been pretty bad about writting.

Obama Foreign Policy/ Fall Out from Debate

After some initial strong words about unilateral strikes in Pakistan [I wrote about it..needless to say I was not happy about that part], it seems Obama is softening his tone with regards to Pakistan

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said Wednesday it's critical for Pakistan to be a constructive ally in fighting al-Qaida, one week after his hard-line pledge to hunt down terrorists in that country even without consulting President Pervez Musharraf.

Obama declined to criticize the Bush administration's policies on Pakistan, and expressed sympathy for Musharraf, who faces a growing militant backlash in his Muslim nation.

Good backtrack, although some damage has already been done. Needless to say the the Pakistani government, nor its people were very happy about his initial remarks. What a dumb thing to say in public.

Glenn Greenwald on the 'Foreign Policy Community' and its problems - I agree with Greenwalds analysis. Like him it surprises me how in the world of foreign affairs, scholars and thinkers who continually get very important issues [ like Iraq] can still be looked upon as respected thinkers to be consulted for what comes next. Why!? Their advise and cheerleading is what got us in this clusterfuck in the first place.

America is plagued by a self-anointed, highly influential, and insular so-called Foreign Policy Community which spans both political parties. They consider themselves Extremely Serious and have a whole litany of decades-old orthodoxies which one must embrace lest one be declared irresponsible, naive and unserious. Most of these orthodoxies are ossified 50-year-old relics from the Cold War, and the rest are designed to place off limits from debate the question of whether the U.S. should continue to act as an imperial force, ruling the world with its superior military power.

Well I agree with his analysis for the most part. Except that I disagree with Greenwald that Obama said anything inherently wrong or immoral with his, in essence, policy of unilateral strikes when necessary.

I think its inadvisable in 99 percent of situations but as there is a chance that it would of been necessary, I cannot say we do not have the option. For example: What if the world was not with us on the Afghanistan conflict...what if the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden [it did refuse], what if it knowingly provided it a safe-haven for al-Qaeda to set up training camps and strike at the US [it did], but what if no other nation would help us...? In that situation I think the invasion of Afghanistan would still have been necessary.

But Obama recently, completely ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to strike (or counterstike) at known terrorist targets in Pakistan or anywhere. And, I agree with him...

I know what you are thinking: Doesn't that go against your 1% chance thing just talked about above.

Well, no.

You see there is NO situation in which it would be correct or justifiable to use nuclear weapons in any nation in order to kill terrorists. The use of nuclear weapons for that purpose is too horrible and unthinkable...the carnage, the massive, massive amounts of innocent civilian dead, the rightful damage to our international image, and the example it would set for other nuclear powers should make this option absolutely unthinkable.

Second, if you have good enough intelligence to aim a nuke at, you stand a good enough chance of getting him through conventional means. There is no need for nukes. At all

Obama's 'New Foreign Policy' vs. Old Coventional Wisdom Orthodoxy

Read this memo from Founding Executive Director of the Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and a foreign policy adviser for Barack Obama - Sammantha Powers.

It's slams the old foreign policy and the problems it has caused [go to Iraq, don't talk with Iran, don't talk with adversaries or you reward bad behavior etc...] and proposed new methods.

The memo:

It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things.(snip)

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

* The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
* The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
* The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Good memo, and good foreign policy proposals for the most part. I think his stance on diplomacy is my favorite if not one of my favorite parts about his foreign policy.

Iran

Bush and Congress could collide on Iran - Basically, will Bush even see fit to come to Congress for authorization to use force in Iraq. All indication tell me that at this point he would find a way to claim that Congress cannot hamper his powers as Commander-In-Chief to wage a war in Iraq even though the Constitution is quite clear on this question.

If he were to strike Iran, he's just do it. The most Congress could do afterwards is complain about it after the fact, but there might be little Congress could do to keep him from doing it. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

And imagine what would happen. He strikes...and the criticism doesn't come because people are too afraid to say anything lest they be charged with wanting our military to fail in the current Iran mission. Speculation, I know. But who knows.

Iraq

Administration and war-cheerleader claims that the 'surge' has decreased sectarian violence has, like so many things they said, turned out to be false

Iraqi and American military officials say incidents of sectarian "cleansing" in Baghdad have decreased since a U.S. military clampdown began in February, but what is happening in Amil and neighboring Bayaa belies the claim.

Since May, Iraqi police say, more than 160 bodies have been found in Amil and Bayaa -- men without identification, usually shot and bearing signs of torture, hallmarks of sectarian death squads.

On many days, the number of corpses found in the two neighborhoods account for half of those picked up across the capital. Before the war, Amil and Bayaa were middle-class neighborhoods where Sunnis and Shiites lived easily among one another. Now, not only are they mainly Shiite, but they have become prime territory for Shiite militias looking to expand into the surrounding Sunni-dominated areas.

Like I say: Take administration claims with a grain of salt. Take military claims with a grain of salt as well.

Take General Petraeus much anticipated September Surge Progress Report with A HUGE grain of salt. Actual progress or not...the report will tell us that there is. So instead of pressure being put on withdrawal as September comes like those wavering Republicans are promising...

They instead will push for 'more time', and with that, withdrawal becomes the problem for the next president and Congress to undertake. [Both likely will be Democratic-controlled]

Dick Cheney Gets STUPIDER With Age

I bet this will surprise you. I knew his position back during the early 90's but its interesting that there is actual video of it. Really brings home how much of a dumbass he became.

Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire'

It's not the first time that citizen "investigative journalists" have uncovered some embarrassing, or telling, nugget from the past that apparently remained buried for years. But it has happened again with the posting of a now wildly popular video on YouTube that shows Dick Cheney explaining in 1994 that trying to take over Iraq would be a "bad idea" and lead to a "quagmire."

The people who put it up come from a site called Grand Theft Country, the on-screen source appears to be the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and the date on the screen is April 15, 1994. That looks right, by the age of Cheney.

I am definitely getting that video and will be putting it on my profile.

There is a saying: 'With age comes wisdom'

...Well, not always it seems.

Good night.

Barack Obama and the "New" Foreign Policy - In The Right Direction But Fraught With Problems

2007-08-03T19:36:00.000-07:00

With all the news coverage the past few days revolving around the tragic collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis, it would certainly not surprise me if no one heard that Barack Obama recently made a very big foreign policy speech. In this speech he outlined his general views and, often as well, specific proposals and programs.

There has been a lot of controversy in the wake of Obama's big foreign policy speech, from both Republicans and Democrats, and among Democrats, and among liberals. The speech has highlighted something we already knew: Even among Democrats, even among liberals/progressives and those further Left...there is difference over what is appropriate foreign policy, what is legitimate and illegitimate actions and language. Up until know those differences have more or less been subsumed by our shared disgust and opposition to the Bush foreign policy and to Republican policies in general. But, I'll get into all that later. First the speech itself.

Overall I think the speech marks a positive departure from what goes on for 'conventional wisdom' and 'normal' foreign policy. If you remember the tenor of my last post, I have a very low regard for what passes for 'conventional wisdom' and 'normal' in Washington. This 'wisdom' has brought us much problems including the disasters of the pass 6 years.

He strikes a very positive tone, and highlights a strategy against terror that is more pragmatic, more sensitive to address underlying causes of terrorism, and one which can lead us down a road of gaining back our international prestige. All without having to sacrifice and undermine the very values that we have historically stood for. But there are some problems, and I will deal with those later on in the post.

It is quite long (really long) so I'll provide relevant snippets and add my comments:

Obama's Full Terrorism Speech:

What we saw that morning forced us to recognize that in a new world of threats, we are no longer protected by our own power. And what we saw that morning was a challenge to a new generation. [9/11]

The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph. And so a war over secession became an opportunity to set the captives free. An attack on Pearl Harbor led to a wave of freedom rolling across the Atlantic and Pacific. An Iron Curtain was punctured by democratic values, new institutions at home, and strong international partnerships abroad.

After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Here, Obama is setting up the difference between his foreign policy, and George Bush's foreign policy and its mistakes. He highlights how we took our eye off al-Qaeda and thus is implicitly informing us that his own policy against terrorism will focus on them and that it will be - unlike Bush's strategy - a comprehensive approach (military, economic, diplomacy, ideology, and sources of terrorist recruits).

Here I can certainly agree with Obama and the general idea behind his policy. Plus I like the optimistic tones he strikes, and how he speaks about the historical examples of the US making good out of earlier bad events. This to contrast between the deepening mess Bush has of the horrible events of 9/11.

What’s more, in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us.

It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.

He's calling for a change to what is now deemed "acceptable"

I love this following excerpt:

Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

Unlike what passes for "knowledge" especially among Republicans and hawkish figures, Obama shows a much more profound and deeper understanding of the complexities of the terrorism problem. He doesn't simply lump in all Muslims as terrorist, or couch our battle in terms of a clash of civilization like others are prone to do. He understands that most Muslims are not our enemies, and are far from being natural adversaries of our.

In addition, he shows his understanding of what it takes to fight this battle: Not only must we know our actual enemies, we have to know what it is we fight for. It does us no good to kill a terrorist and sacrifice all that defines us as Americans. So far so good.

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn’t exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

And worse – he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we’ve seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Precisely!! Bring the focus back on those who pose us a risk. And he makes the point I must have made so many damn times; Our bad policies, our invasion of Iraq, our general reactions to the terrorists have done nothing but play into the hands of the terrorists.

We played into their hands by reacting like they wanted us to react and getting ourselves bogged in a disaster that increases terror recruitment, lowers our image and prestige, alienates us from our allies, and damages our military. This is the war they wanted, and that is the war Bush gave them.

Good, good. Lets keep going

Summary of Obamas '5 element comprehensive strategy' to terrorism

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (snip)
...ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.
There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq’s leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support – not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Great position but the language is vague. What does he mean by "maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq"? It can be construed to mean that he plans to maintain reduced amounts of troops in Iraq. I also noticed that he says our best leverage in Iraq was to "reduce our presence" in Iraq. Not end our presence...

Troubling because when do we leave? On the one hand he shows he understand that we enable al-Qaeda to survive in Iraq due to our very presence in Iraq, but then he proposes keeping some troops (reduced numbers) in country.

WTH!? First off: How much is "reduced troop presence"

Second: It doesn't matter, it is a foolish policy. A reduced presence will not mollify the Sunni insurgents, nor the Shia militias who want the US to completely withdraw. They have no love for al Qaeda and will eliminate them once we leave, but they also want us completely out. This from one of the temporary "allies" we have among the Sunni:

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."
He adds, "Especially after the help the U.S. Army has provided us, we would like them to go home as our friend, not enemy."

Obama understands our presence enables al-Qaeda in Iraq but his plan to reduce troop levels will not placate the Sunnis, nor the Shias. They will continue to attack them until there is no presence. Except, the reduced troop levels will have the unintended consequence of making US troops more vulnerable. They are less numerous, easier to kill, and the reduced numbers make their mission harder because they wont have the numbers to go on offense, nor the numbers to withstand the attacks that are sure to keep coming from Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, and al-Qaeda extremists.

Obama seems to have an...'incomplete' understanding of the dynamics of Iraq. He's close, but he makes one fundamental error in assuming that Sunnis and Shias will be satisfied with the US simply reducing troop levels. They wont. This one error in position has significant consequences to the soundness of his Iraq strategy.

So far, I don't like his policy stance as it regards Iraq. That is one very big strike against Obama.

Afghanistan & Pakistan

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.

He does connect removing troops from Iraq with increasing them in Afghanistan. He makes the point elsewhere that we took our eye of fighting in places that really had to do with the 'war on terror' by going to Iraq and neglecting to consolidate our victory in Afghanistan.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers.

Good. Nice sounding proposal.

This next part has caused much controversy:

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Careful, Obama. It is indeed true that the Taliban and al-Qaeda use the tribal regions of Pakistan as base.

I understand and sympathize with attempts to coerce Pakistani Pres. Musharraf to do more but it's not that simple. President Musharraf's grip on power is looking less and less secure with every passing day.

Musharraf, an army general who seized power in 1999, is embroiled in the toughest period of his rule. He faces intensifying pressure to restore democracy, widespread anger at last month's deadly military raid on Islamabad's Red Mosque, and surging pro-Taliban violence.

He's facing political protests and pressure from both secular and religious elements in his country. He is posed with the very real danger of militant Islamic groups.

Considering that Pakistan is a nuclear power and that it would be a disaster to instigate chaos in which, who knows, one of those nukes might get "lost", its best we be more cautious with how we deal with Pakistan.

Frankly its one of the few times I'm liable to agree with Bush that we not try and rock the boat too much and end up bringing Musharraf flying overboard. If we put too much pressure on Musharraf he might:

1) Say "fuck you" to the US. This is too much hassle. I'm sure he's get a little domestic boost for that.

2) Cave and crackdown harder in Northern Pakistan's tribal regions and cause a big shitstorm as the well armed Tribes fight Pakistan security. Further weakening Musharraf and sowing chaos in which pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaeda elements can grow. Screw it...chaos in general in not good.

Finally, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."

In theory, I agree with this but...you just do NOT say this, nor do you make this a part of your big foreign policy speech. Although he caveats it by saying 'if we have good Intel AND Musharraf wont act,' it is essentially saying 'we will unilaterally violate the sovereignty of another nation when we have to'

That is why there has been so much controversy within the Left: Many see this as a continuation of Bush's own foreign policy of unilateral preemptive strikes.

Such strikes are indeed usually not wise, but I personally cannot say that it is a bad thing by its very nature. I mean, everyone was agreed that Afghanistan was justified; they not only sheltered al-Qaeda but refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after 9/11 when the US asked. The US striked. What if we had to do it alone or unilaterally? I say we still should have gone given the circumstance.

But, and this is a BIG but...It's usually not wise or advisable. And in the particular case of Pakistan...I do not think its wise to launch any action in northern Pakistan. The potential damage resulting from such a strike would far out weigh any gain from rounding up or killing a few terrorists (even top terrorists).

And certainly you don't freakin talk about it in public you moron! How will Pakistanis react?

Well here are some reactions:

Fri Aug 3, 9:13 AM ET
Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)

Obama talks about a new foreign policy, about rebuilding our alliances, about reclaiming the respect of people around the globe, about reducing anti-Americanism; all laudable words.

But he undercuts those very goals by making these remarks. He has a great vision but he needs to stop proving he is "tough", he needs to stop trying to throw the "moderate" and "centrist" pundits and talking-heads a bone with "see, I'm serious too" on it.

Stop it!! You have a great vision, and you have the foundations for a very great foreign policy and terrorism policy that in many ways reflects my own. But there are a few significant differences that seriously undermine and weaken your terrorism policy.

That's more or less the extent of my commentary on his speech, and I've hardly scratched it. But here is a few interesting proposals that highlight what I believe are good aspects of his terrorism policy:

As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.

Interesting idea. Promotes increasing cooperation with other nations (good) to better deal with terrorism (good). I think the best part is the focus on doing so without resorting to brutality, noting quite correctly that brutality breeds terror. Brutality is indeed counter-productive, a concept that is usually lost on neoconservatives and other hawks who think the answer is always to "get tough" and put the fear of God into them.

Consider Republican Presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo and his plan to deter terrorism by holding the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina under a threat of nuclear blackmail.

Seriously....No, SERIOUSLY! But more on that an more in my next post

Diplomacy

And I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.

It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.
President Kennedy said it best: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”

Any casual reader of my posts knows that I agree 100% with this. I've railed against the idea that negotiations are rewards, and just recently I applauded Obama's stance that he would negotiate with rival nations without precondition. You shouldn't expect to get everything you want BEFORE talks...what kind of incentive do you give for nations to concede anything to the US? And they wonder why Bush diplomacy has been so unsuccessful!

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim – nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites. (snip)

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show – through deeds as well as words – that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say – as Secretary Rumsfeld did – “Freedom is untidy.” I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy. (snip)
I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open “America Houses” in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America’s Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new “ America’s Voice Corps” we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with – and listen to – the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

Highlights are more profound understanding about terrorism and root causes of it. Terrorism requires a comprehensive approach that requires us to address the environments in which extremism grows.

Final Thoughts

There is much much more. Please, give the whole speech a read.

The fact is that I agree with Obama on the vast majority of his positions and policies, but there are a few significant differences of opinion that still keeps me 'undecided' as a voter. Hopefully he can clarify his positions better and also change them around in a manner so that we are not in disagreement on such fundamentally important issues such as Iraq.

DC Elite Conventional Wisdom vs. Reality

2007-07-29T19:27:00.001-07:00

One of the most frustrating things involving politics has to be how ideas and policies that by all evidence and common sense is wrong or radical, is trumpeted as "mainstream" and "acceptable" by media elites, who consider themselves, of course, also "moderates."

Yet how many times are we confronted supposed "moderation" that is completely at odds with what the majority of the American people want? I mean...shouldn't "moderate" and "mainstream" mean that majorities of the American people believe the same?

In the past this "moderation" was found in many debates:

The Social Security debate: Pundits and Commentators insisted that the Democrats must be "moderate," must be "bipartisan," and must listen to the American people and compromise with Republicans over Social Security. This "compromise of course would of completely destroyed the system and the defeated the purpose of Social Security but...that didn't matter.

Of course, most people sided with Democrats and their concepts but pesky facts like that are often overlooked or igored.

Iraq Withdrawal: Pundits have warned Democrats for a while not to push withdrawal too much. We were warned not to push to hard before the 2006 midterms or else the nation would punish Democrats...even though polling told the story that the Democratic message of withdrawing from Iraq was popular.
-----

These Beltway "Serious" People are have lived life so long in their Washington, or New York bubble that they lose touch with Americans at large. They think they are smart, educated and and so knowledgable of the world that they are just right about everything. They come to see their own opinions as what constitutes "mainstream" and "acceptable" and label anything that resides outside their limited scope as "radical," "naive," and "unserious."

It never occurs to them that they could be wrong, or that their ideas, or the ideas they accept as legitimate, are the ones who are "radical" and far out of the mainstream.

Barrack Obama's YouTube Debate "Gaffe"

This bring me to the recent CNN/YouTube debate in which the question posed was: Would you have talks with nations now considered Americas enemies in his first year? (paraphrasing)

[This I assumes means nations like Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and others]

Barrack Obama answered that he would talk to these countries without precondition because he does not subscribe to the view that talks are rewards for bad behaviour, but that they are neccesary tools to get "bad" nations to act in a manner that is "not so bad."

Hillary Clinton called this view "naive" and that she would not talk to these nations without some sort of preconditions before talks began.

These different responses highlight a vast difference between the two candidate as it refers to their different foreign policy philosophies.

The media elite, and Beltway conventional wisdom worshipers almost universally called this a "gaffe" on the part of Obama and agreed with Clinton that this only highlighted to the American people how naive and inexperienced Obama was in foreign affairs.

But this example only highlights how out of touch with "mainstream" these people actually are.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon points to us to just one of these Conventional Wisdom -machines poo-pooing Obamas view as "too left":

Chris Mathews Show, July 26, 2007

MATTHEWS: I share your sentiments. But as a journalist, I have to look at the politics of this thing. Your last words?
[Weekly Standard's Stephen] HAYES: I think if [Obama] continues down this course I think he's in serious trouble because it‘s unsustainable.

MATTHEWS: Too far left?

HAYES: Absolutely.

The opinion is crystal clear: Obamas ideas are essentially too radical, too extreme, to outside the mainstream for America.

So, how does the American people actually feel about this question?

A recent Rassmussen Report poll tells us that more Americans actually side with Obama on this question that Clinton:

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.
That question came up during last Monday's Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama.

So, polls tell us that, of the Americans who have an opinion, a majority side with Barrack Obama and his view. And importantly for the Democratic primary, most Democrats agree with Obama.

Yet, the conventional wisdom among the Washington opinion makers is that Obama made a "gaffe." That this highlighted a lack of knowledge of foreign policy, and that this was "too left."

Obamas views are too radical yet no word on the trully radical and horrendous policies and ideas promulgated by people who get on TV all the time. These ideas that follow are acceptable...

From the same Chris Matthews show we get crazy ass (but "serious") Stephen Hayes:

MATTHEWS: on Cheney, because Cheney is the kind of guy who represents to me the hard case. He‘s not going to go negotiate with anybody. Is it fair to say that Cheney would take the position, you don‘t deal with Ahmadinejad, for whatever reason, you don‘t deal with Castro, you don‘t deal with Kim Jong il or any of these guys. You stiff them. Is that the Cheney view?
HAYES: To play off of what Sally said, it actually is for the opposite point. You don‘t play with them precisely because it gives them respect. It gives them stature on the world stage that they don‘t deserve. Ahmadinejad, as Howard said several times—he‘s a holocaust denier.
That‘s crazy talk.—ridiculous, insane position.
MATTHEWS: Does that mean never talk to them?
HAYES: Yes, absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Then what do we do? How do we negotiate?
HAYES: We don‘t negotiate somebody who‘s denying the holocaust, with somebody who‘s killing our soldiers.
MATTHEWS: What do you do with them?
HAYES: I think you confront them. I think you confront them in a stronger way.
MATTHEWS: How do you do that? What should we do with Iran?
HAYES: Certainly we should be having units, at the very least, taking out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who are killing our soldiers.
MATTHEWS: So we should cross the border?
HAYES: I think if we need to cross the border, we should cross the border? Yes.
MATTHEWS: You think we should be acting aggressively towards Iran?
HAYES: Yes.

The "acceptable" position, the position of many neconservatives who always get invited to national TV news shows is that we should not negotiate with out enemies because it would reward bad behavior. And Chris asks the million dollar question: "If we don't talk, what then?"

War of course you dumbass!! People who propose diplomacy are radical, and "too left," but idiots who argue for another war (and believe me the quickest way to get there is to listen to Stephen Hayes), with a nation several orders tougher and bigger than Iraq, while we are still bogged down in the first mistake those same neconservatives like Hayes got us into (Iraq).

This is not radicalism? Is this not crazy and insane positions?

But if you pay enough attention to the news you learn quick that proposing violence and wars as a solution to any problem will never get you labeled "radical." A hawk is just assumed to always be serious and smart. While those who see it different are always "radial" or outside the mainstream.

The only thing this incident really highlights is how out of touch or national "talking heads" are.

----

I happen to agree with Obama. It's much saner and more pragmatic foreign policy outlook, that is more likely to achieve progress. Clintons view is - sadly - not that far different from the current Bush stance on diplomatic talks with "enemies." They both wish for enemy nations to achieve several preconditions prior to engaging in talks.

This is silly in most cases because, especially when it comes to Bush, the preconditions are often demands that negotiations themselves are supposed to accomplish.

Like the precondition for North Korea to abandon its nuclear program prior to talks. Are you stupid!: You want North Korea to concede everything prior to talks. Needless to say they haven't been too successful until they finally gave up on those ridiculous preconditions.

This difference in foreign policy outlook is not unimportant:

In fact I'm quite confident in saying that if it came down to a choice between Obama and Clinton, I would gladly choose Obama just on the basis of this issue. As it stands I'm not committed to any one candidate yet, but Clinton lost a lot of my respect during that debate.

-------------

Roundup

Larissa Alexandrovna of Raw Story does some original reporting and based on interviews with some former and and current intelligence officials, reports that the recent National Intelligence Estimate could be flawed.

Flaws and politicization of the NIE

Current and former intelligence officials say the Bush Administration's National Intelligence Estimate regarding terrorist threats to the United States does not provide evidence to support its assertions and may have inflated the domestic threat posed by the Lebanese political and military group Hezbollah, perhaps because it receives financial support from Iran.

According to the report, Hezbollah – a Shi'a Muslim group with ties to Iran that has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United States – may target the US domestically if the US poses a serious threat to Iran. But sources say the allegations about Hezbollah were simply "thrown in."
Speaking under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, several intelligence officers asserted that the report was sloppy and lacked supporting evidence. "The NIE seems… fiddled [with]," regarding Hezbollah, one high-ranking CIA official said. "Whether it is or isn't is not really the point. The point is that nobody is ready to believe it." (snip)
An individual close to the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research told RAW STORY the document's assertions are not backed up by empirical or external evidence even in the classified version. In addition, this official explained, the information lacks context and does not prioritize threats.

Released last week, the NIE is a consensus view from all sixteen intelligence agencies and departments, compiled by the National Intelligence Council and signed off on by the agencies involved as well as by the Director for National Intelligence. The document represents the "official" intelligence community view on any issue related to national security.

Intelligence officials would not confirm whether the classified version contained dissenting views. However, several expressed concern that parts of the report may have been politicized.

A possibly politicized document coming from the Bush Administration...say it ain't so.

--------

Americans trust Democrats over Republicans on just about every issue -

When it comes to National Security, Democrats are now trusted more by 42% of likely voters, Republicans by 40%. This means that Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters' trust of the two major parties.

In late June Democrats had the edge on nine of ten issues. At that time, the GOP had a single point advantage of the National Security issue. (snip)
The Democrats have also gained a little ground this month when it comes to the War in Iraq. Harry Reid’s party moved from a ten-point advantage in late June to a twelve-point lead of 47% to 35% in the new survey.

On another hot-button issue, Immigration, Democrats are now trusted more by 40%, versus 30% who trust Republicans more. This ten-point disparity is the second-largest we've seen all year. But another 29% don't find either party trustworthy.

Only Government Ethics and Corruption inspires higher levels of bipartisan distaste. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t notice any difference between the parties on the ethics front--among unaffiliated voters, that percentage mushrooms to 58%. Overall, Democrats are now favored by 38%, Republicans by 25%.

The GOP also lost ground on the Economy this month with Democrats now trusted more 47% to 38%. In June,the Democrats’ advantage was 47% to 40%.

Forty-three percent (43%) now trust Democrats more on Taxes, 41% trust Republicans more.

On domestic issues, Democrats enjoy the biggest advantage on Health Care and Social Security. Fifty percent (50%) trust Democrats more on Health Care, 33% trust Republicans more. On Social Security, 47% trust Democrats more while 34% prefer the GOP.

On Education, Democrats now have a four point advantage; on Abortion, a five-point advantage.

Good news, but I'm simply baffled why the American people throw in the Democrats as just as corrupt as Republicans. Dozens of Republicans have been investigated, arrested, charged with various corrupt practices yet Democrats are implicated too? My guess is that the high profile cases of Democratic corruption (such as William Jefferson) leave Americans with the false impression that corruption is equally a Democrat and Republican past-time. Or perhaps its just general disgust and cynicism when it comes to Washington in general. A "pox on both their houses" mentality...who knows.

---------

Pentagon makes contingency plans for a Iraq pullout - SecDef Gates responds to Senator Clinton's queries and confirms that there is in fact contingency planning being done for withdrawal scenarios. Honestly, I'm a little relieved even though I doubt they plan on using them anytime soon. At least they are not making the mistake done prior to the Iraq invasion where they totally discounted how difficult the invasion would be and so did not plan before-hand for anything but being "greeted with flowers and candy."

Needless to say, they were seriously caught with their pants down when Iraq didn't turn out to be such a cakewalk...

---------

That's all for today. I've been pretty lazy about blogging past few days...stuff just pops up. Little blogging tomorrow 'cuz I have to work so perhaps Tuesday.

Good night.

The Founders Feared an Imperial President

2007-07-24T22:27:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I'm kind of lazy and in a bad mood today so...I'm not much in a thinking mood. So the whole post will be a roundup of interesting stuff from the past couple days.

Presidential Power
Just what the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War -

Adam Cohen does fine work in this piece.

The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn't have the power to do it. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war," he said at a recent press conference. "I think they ought to be funding the troops." He added magnanimously: "I'm certainly interested in their opinion."

The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress's side.

What Bush wants and expects is a rubberstamp from Congress. As if he has ALL the power: To declare war, wage war, determine when to exit, and Congress simply provides funding. Oh no, not only does it provide funding, but it cannot use the powers of the purse as leverage to enforce its will or coerce the president to change policy.

Reality check Mr. President: Congress has the power to declare war, to ratify peace, to maintain, fund, and regulate, the armed forces of the US, and the Founders gave the Congress its funding powers precisely because it wanted to give the Legislature that leverage in order to check the power of the president (and the courts).

Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution's framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called "the foetus of monarchy."
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe's history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings.

I liked this snippet

The Constitution does make the president "commander in chief," a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be "nothing more" than "first general and admiral," responsible for "command and direction" of military forces.
The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly.

Mr. Cohen makes a great point on what the term "Commander-in-Chief" means, and how it is abused by this President in order to give him much more expansive powers than is rightfully his under the Consitutution. The man thinks he can strike Iran and Congress can in no way legislate or impede his ability to do so because it conflicts with his powers of commander in chief. But as Cohen notes: Commander-in-Chiefs is the highest officer and can execute wars already declared. But the Commander-in-Chief and thus the President does NOT have the authority to unilaterally and without the assent of Congress initiate war. Nor can he officially ratify Peace after a Conflict.

Those powers go to Congress. It is they who have legitimate right to dictate and determine when we go in and also they have a role to play in determining when we leave. And the power of the purse is but one of the consitutional arms given to Congress in order to enforce its prerogative on the President. COngress role is not simply to ruberstamp funding requests.

Give it a good read, its not that long.
------
Roundup

It seems our diplomacy around the world has been suffering due to the overriding attentions that Iraq garners from our leaders.

At a time in which it is essential for the US to be mending fences and engaging in some global diplomacy, it is instead doing all it can to snub the entire world. And, as we ignore and snub nations in SE Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America, we also will see more an more nations turning away from the US. China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela meanwhile do not hesitate to try their hand at diplomacy and "soft-power" and are making may inroads in all those regions.

Its not a zero-sum game so not all gains my these nations means it is to the detriment of the US, but its negligence of these regions is certainly reducing its influence in those regions and providing great opportunities for China and others to fill the gaps. We ignore the world at our own peril...
---------

Bush's incompetence gives Al-Qaeda new life- (Salon) ....Yeah, tell me about it

-----
Did we say September? I meant "NextSummer" *cough*

Unless Congress acts now or in September, it will come and go and the President will just keep moving that goal post back....and back some more. "Did we say September"? Who didn't see this coming?

A revised U.S. military plan envisions establishing security at the local level in Baghdad and elsewhere by next summer, it likely would take another year to get Iraqi forces ready to enforce any newfound stability, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

Known as the Joint Campaign Plan, developed in tandem by Gen. David Petraeus and his political counterpart in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, it reflects a timetable starkly at odds with the push by many in Congress to wind down U.S. involvement in a matter of months.

--------

Iraq Insurgent Groups Unite - Against Al-Qaeda and the US -

Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian.

In their first interview with the western media since the US-British invasion of 2003, leaders of three of the insurgent groups - responsible for thousands of attacks against US and Iraqi armed forces and police - made clear that they would continue their armed resistance until all foreign troops were withdrawn from Iraq, and denounced al-Qaida for sectarian killings and suicide bombings against civilians. (snip)

Leaders of the three groups - who did not use their real names in the interview - said the new front, which brings together all the main Sunni-based armed organisations except al-Qaida and the Ba'athists, has agreed the main planks of a joint political programme, including a commitment to free Iraq from all foreign troops, rejection of any cooperation with parties involved in the political institutions set up under the occupation, and a declaration that all decisions and agreements made by the US occupation and Iraqi government are null and void.

The aim of the alliance - which includes a range of Islamist and nationalist-leaning groups and is currently called the Political Office for the Iraqi Resistance - is to link up with other anti-occupation groups in Iraq to negotiate with the Americans in anticipation of an early US withdrawal. The programme envisages a temporary technocratic government to run the country during a transition period until free elections can be held.

Like I said, even most Sunni insurgents have no love for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Once we leave they will not take over the country. They want the US out...that's their friction with the US...its very presence in Iraq. It certaintly is a positive sign that they plan to hold talks with the US, but I seriously doubt that the transition from US occupation to free-Iraq will go that smooth. Although they claim to not be against working with Shia groups, they say they will not deal with Shia militias and groups because of their affiliation with this Iraqi government who they see as a puppet and embodyment of the US occupation.

In essence: Which Shia will they be OK dealing with? Who is left?

I don't know. At this point I still see a lot of chaos and civil war raging when the US leave...nothing so far tells me otherwise but you never know what kind of accomodation can be reached between now and our withdrawal.

----

And speaking of pulling our troops out...
Democrats vow to continue pressing ahead for US withdrawal from Iraq -

Good luck, and I mean that. It's going to be a bitch fighting Republican obstuction in the Senate in the form of the Filibuster.

They are, after all, on track to be the highest-filibustering most-obstructionist party in US history.

That's the Republican Party for ya!

Plus they have the gal to criticize Democrats for not being able to get things done!

It's like someone breaking you leg and then critcizing you for not being able to walk correctly.

What Happens When We Leave Iraq?

2007-07-22T10:33:00.000-07:00

Now that the war is turning into a political liability for Republicans and conservatives, a new justification for our continued presence has popped up:

We cannot leave Iraq or else Iraq will be controlled by Al Qaeda in Iraq and remain a safe-haven for terrorism. They will follow us home etc... etc...

This view of likely post-withdrawal scenarios is - in my view - informed by sheer ignorance about how the various sectarian actors in Iraq will react to the withdrawal of US troops and by a general ignorance of foreign policy and terrorism.

Not only is al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) a relatively small group in Iraq, it also responsible for a very small percentage of total attacks in Iraq. The bulk of the violence is due to the Sunni insurgent groups, and to the Shia militias.

Let me fill you guys in on something. Apologies because I know I've said this before:

Nobody in Iraq likes Al-Qaeda

-Sunni Insurgents: Hate these foreign fighters (despite both of them being Sunni), distrust their motives. Many of the Sunni insurgent groups are ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. Islamic jihadists and Baathists hated each other in the pre-invasion era.

This fact explains why many of us doubters were simply baffled that Bush would claim that Saddam was harboring Islamic terrorists in his country. They were just as eager to kill Saddam as they were to kill Americans!!

Yet, up until now (in the post-invasion era) there has been toleration and cooperation between the Sunni insurgents and AQI. Why?

Because they have made a marriage of convenience to deal with the perceived 'greater evil' of the US occupation. But, make no mistake, there is no love lost between these two groups

As I noted in a June blog post (citing CNN):

U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.
This new alliance, a result of the deepening divisions among Iraqi insurgent factions, was on display earlier this week at a highway intersection in the town of Tahrir. There, a group of some 15 insurgents publicly chanted: "Death to al Qaeda."
"The al Qaeda organization has dominated and humiliated Sunnis, Shiites and jihadis. It has forced people from their homes. They can't get enough blood. They killed many honest scholars, preachers and loyal mujahedeen," one of the group's spokesmen read from a written manifesto.

It's a sharp turnaround from just two months ago when the same insurgent forces were focused on fighting U.S. troops and driving them out of Diyala province, about 40 miles north of Baghdad.
No love lost there, yet they cooperated for reasons of opposing the US...except, some insurgent groups are now working WITH the US against AQI for the very same reasons. Some of these groups get arms and support, and they will use it against AQI (and inevitably, I believe, against Shias).

But the same article gives us reason for caution in this ugly alliance:

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

In other words - once they weaken al-Qaeda they will attack our troops again until we withdraw from Iraq.

Here's the funny thing: This 'enemy of my enemy' relationship that is still significant between Sunni insurgent groups and AQI is only made possible because of US troop presence in Iraq. If the US where to withdraw its forces from Iraq, the Sunni insurgent groups would quickly eliminate the Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.

----
What about the Shia?

The Shia loath AQI. Unlike the Sunni insurgent groups, the Shia militias have no significant reason to even cooperate with AQI. AQI is a Sunni jihadist extremist group who loves to kill Shias as apostates and untrue Muslims.

There will be no tolerance - and indeed there is none now - for AQI among the Shia groups in Iraq.

The Kurds?

The Kurds similarly have no need or love for AQI. They have a slightly-more-stable enclave in the north of Iraq and have no need for the chaos that AQI is known to bring. They will find no shelter and no love among the Kurds.

Conclusions

Lets be clear, there will be no good options in Iraq. There will be no magical solution, no course of action, which will lead to anything but some levels of significant violence even civil war in Iraq. That outcome is unavoidable whether we stay in Iraq or leave; And indeed, such outcomes are the inevitable product of our own initial mistake of invading Iraq, and subsequent mistakes in managing the occupation. We are stuck in a scenario with very few options and none of them good; some just less bad.

If we withdraw from Iraq - and I think we should - there will be violence in Iraq but that is unavoidable. But the United States can take a bad outcome for the US and make it less bad by withdrawing.

As long as the US remains in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq will retain a safe-haven, a training ground, and a recruitment tool from Iraq. Every day that we remain in Iraq is a day that we allow al-Qaeda a base, a day we boost its recruiting, a day that we do precisely what it wants us to do.

In addition withdrawal will benefit the US by freeing up our military and giving it time to recover, by relieving some of the heavy strain on the budget from the billions we spend per month on the war, and freeing up the US to concentrate on international jihadist terrorism aimed at us. The Iraq War has been a heavy chain around our neck and a source of anger and resentment from the international community...only when we finally leave can we ever hope to begin repairing our standing and relationships with the globe. That, I fear, will take years or decades...

------

So what does the Pentagon itself believe will happen in case of a US withdrawal?

The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing the results of a recent Pentagon "war-gaming" of just such an outcome. It's important to note that they did not find that Al-Qaeda would control Iraq.

Here's what they did find:

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.
That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

The ugliness really is unavoidable at this point.

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.
For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan."

This lack of concern for al-Qaeda creating some permanent sanctuary likely stems from the knowledge that they are a relatively small groups in Iraq, and that they are not likely to survive long after the Americans leave.

The United States needs to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. From a range of options that are all bad, it is the lesser evil and one that will harm the United States the least.

We must bring the troops home

------------

Roundup

Iraq

Turkey Threatens Iraq Incursion - Yet another complication for the US mission in Iraq. I've followed the rising tensions between Iraq and Turkey due to Kurdish rebel groups attacking Turkey and taking refuge in Northern Iraq.

Turkey has warned that it could send troops into northern Iraq after today's general elections if talks with Iraqi and US officials fail to produce effective measures against Kurdish rebels based there.

I'll update if anything happens...although if it did I'm sure it would be plastered on the TV all day.

Analysis: GOP Senators nervous about the war (Associated Press) - I'd be nervous too if I were them. It's a good read but there are several parts of this article that deserve special comment

Asked whether they believe that the war was mismanaged Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) replied:

"The strategy we had before was not the right strategy," he told reporters at midweek. "We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy."

By his remarks, Bond made it clear he meant the strategy was wrong from the time Saddam Hussein was deposed until this past January, when Gen. David Petraeus was installed as top military commander. That's a span of nearly four years.

Asked who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, "Ultimately, obviously, the president."

Should any blame fall on Congress — under Republican control the entire time?

"Congress was not running the war," Bond replied.

He's right in that the war was indeed mismanaged and that the US should have focused more on counterinsurgency tactics from the get-go. [As an aside, I'll add that counterinsurgency tactics would not have assured success, and at this point it is too late and too chaotic for those tactics to change the situation]

What riles me up is that they seek to place all blame with the President for not changing tactics but the Republican Congress had 4 years to pressure for change...so why didn't it?

Quite simple: They didn't think they had the wrong strategy. Or, they were too cowardly or afraid to criticize the war strategy. In fact, they went out of their way to attack Democrats and others who argued that this war was being mismanaged. It's insulting for these Republicans to now try and skirt away from some of the blame for the disaster.

Here's another thing that got my interest:

"Today's mission is focused on al-Qaida," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., reflecting what other administration allies in Congress say privately.

In this view, the main U.S. military focus should be on preventing Iraq from falling under terrorist control. One Republican senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shift in talk of a military objective was a prelude to a change to a strategy that would pull U.S. troops back from a civil war between Sunni and Shiites.

But focusing attention on al-Qaida raises familiar questions: Were terrorists present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion and what would happen if U.S. forces departed?
According to several officials, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and McCain engaged in a brief, impromptu debate touching on that point recently at a private meeting of the rank and file.
Voinovich said the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq would together drive al-Qaida from their country if the U.S. were not there. McCain took the opposite view. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting that the meeting was private.

The Republicans are focusing now on keeping al-Qaeda from controlling Iraq. Yet it seems clear that it is our very presence in Iraq which is allowing al-Qaeda to retain Iraq as a base. You see the problem don't you.

-The invasion of Iraq introduced terrorism to Iraq that was not present before
- The presence of al-Qaeda that the Administration made possible is becoming the rationale for our continued presence in Iraq.
- Our continued presence ensures al-Qaeda retains its base in Iraq, thus ensuring our continued presence. Go back to step 2.

It's a goddamed vicious cycle of idiocy that feeds off of its own idiocy to create more idiocy that...well you get the point.

-----

What's is even more frustrating is that Republican Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) seems to understand that Iraqi's will eliminate al-Qaeda after a US withdrawal, and that is good.

But, why, Sen. Voinovich, if you do understand that do you refuse to vote for Senator Harry Reeds binding withdrawal timetable resolution? Why do you proclaim you want a change in Iraq policy yet opt to vote against an amendment which will do just that?

Cowardice

Senator Voinovich and other 'Waverers In Name Only' (WINO's) want the political cover of saying they split with the President and took a stand against the war by supporting bills and amendments by "moderates" in the Senate which would not force the President to change anything. That is cowardice, and that is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers. They want the credit for being anti-war, without doing anything substantive to ensure that the war come to an end.

And they are angry because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed is not giving them the chance to get that political cover: After those WINOs refused to help him beat the Republican Filibuster of his amendment mandating withdrawal (added to a Pentagon bill), he shelved the whole Pentagon bill (along with the other toothless "moderate" amendments) that those moderate Republicans and Democrats hoped would give them political cover.

So...now they get voted no on the Iraq withdrawal, and they are denied their political cover. So, if they really want to reduce the pressure on them from Americans they will just have to play ball with Reed and vote on his amendment next time he brings up the Pentagon bill...or else he'll do it to them again.

Let the cowards flail in the wind.....

	June/July 2006	June/July 2007	Change
Iraqi Military and Police Killed	349	429	Up 23%
Multiple Fatality Bombings	110	82	Down 25%
# Killed in Mult. Fatality Bombings	885	1,053	Up 19%
Iraqi Civilians Killed (All violent causes)	6,739	5,300	Hard to say¹
U.S. Troop Fatalities	104	187	Up 80%
U.S. Troops Wounded	983	1,423	Up 45%
Size of Insurgency	20,000+	~70,000²	Up ~250%
Attacks on Oil and Gas Pipelines	8	14³	Up 75%