What The Retired Generals Are Saying

An interesting article appeared in the most recent issue of The Nation magazine. Written by Richard J. Whalen and titled, "Revolt of the Generals", he looks into the statements of retired and still active military personnel in light of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. Their commentary and observations show distinct differences from the Administration's rhetoric. A brief excerpt:

"Rumsfeld publicly humiliated all who dissented, beginning with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was virtually dismissed the day he honestly gave his views to Congress. Rumsfeld's deputy, neoconservative ideologue Paul Wolfowitz, listened respectfully before rejecting the generals' advice. As the Iraqi insurgency grew, the generals found Rumsfeld "completely unable and unwilling to understand the collapse of security in Iraq," says Maj. Gen. Eaton. The severely understrength US forces have never been able to provide adequate security. Once Iraqi civilians lost their trust and confidence in America's protection, the war was lost politically. As General Newbold says: "Our opposition to Rumsfeld is all about his accountability for getting Iraq wrong from day one.""

Whalen puts together a piece that outlines why the military is extremely concerned that the occupation of Iraq not fully mirror Vietnam in every facet. It is a highly recommended read.

From The Most Recent Senate Vote

The Senate of the United States has spoken. Rape and mutilation are verboten by American interrogators, but it will be to the Administration's best judgement as to what types of harsh treatment fit the Geneva Conventions' Common Article III. From an AP report filed by Anne Plummer Flaherty entitled "Senate backs Bush's terror tribunal plan," it states:

"The bill would eliminate some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" gof international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts."

It should be worth noting that without the Hamdan decision, President Bush would not have asked Congress for any clarity whatsoever with regards to interrogation techniques of United States operatives, much less extraordinary renditions to countries known to torture prisoners. So with a Supreme Court that teeters on 5 to 4 decisions against unlimited executive control, Congress steps in to add insight on what is legal and what will not be legal in terms of trying those captured on and off the field of battle. This is a bill that undoubtedly works in tandem with John McCain's detainee amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill of 2005 that President Bush signed together with a signing statement that read:

"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

It would be unusual for the Administration not to interpret these changes in law as it sees fitting, but at the very least there is now something on the books that says the United States will not rape or mutilate a person for information -- small victories.

This brings up Glenn Greenwald's post. The post title states it clearly, " Beltway Democrats are seriously flawed, but the election is still critically important." The sense of the post is that even with the acceptance in the Senate of this bill, there are still more important cases to come after the 2006 mid-term elections, and a Democratic victory in either chamber would mean that the Bush White House would finally see some sort of brake on its course of the all-powerful-executive branch.

Most who would have wished that the bill not pass the Senate may be tempted to "throw in the towel" so to speak, to give up on Democrats since they could not (or would not) defeat this bill. Greenwald's observations center on why that would be the wrong course to adopt for liberals within this country. The thrust that is most eye-catching is to view a Democratic victory as an instrument to finally enable a check against the President and the secrecy of the executive branch.

Additionally, the very idea to orchestrate this before Congress breaks is in itself a most definitive statement that Beltway Republicans view security on two footings: what can it do for the country, and what can it do for my election hopes. It would appear the first footing really is the lesser of the two concerns, given that since 2001 Congress didn't feel obliged to act on codifying these rules anytime before.

There are only a few weeks left before the collective actions of Congress are accounted for, and the electorate speaks. The Republicans have chosen their path in siding with the President with an almost willful disregard for their very own institutional standing, and the Democrats again appeared to have chosen a duck from the opponents swing.

America truly is going through a chilling time, but most of this is self-inflicted.

More
Jack Balkin posts the following regarding the Congressional bill just passed with regards to Hamdan as was decided by the Supreme Court.

A Five Month Old National Intelligence Estimate

The United States government has assessed the threat level within the world. Months ago. The increased terrorist threat level reflected the ongoing situation in an Iraq that has since become more unstable. From the New York Times article that first made the public aware of this NIE report, it was learned that the sixteen agencies dedicated to spying and being aware of threats to America came to a general consesus that the Iraq stalemate has brought more danger, not less, to the country.

When the New York Times first ran the story, it was not a dissection of the full report as much as an assembly of those who knew of the report and their comments. After the story ran on the 23rd, several made calls on the White House to release the full assessment by the 25th.

The Executive branch has decided to release bits and pieces of the report. A curious decision since it was originally classified in its entirety. To the extent that those portions that President Bush deemed not-as-secret, there are some remarks on what the occupation has returned on the billions invested so far (from Reuters):

"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives," said the declassified segment of the report, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States."

"The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement," it added.

This will mark the return to the fly-paper theory of waging preventative war, yet what it really alludes to is the fact that waging a war against a people and a society at large which does not wish to be occupied only furthers a hatred which will likely boomerang back at the invader.

Sadly, the lesson may not be learned in time.

The Condensed History of President George W. Bush

Sidney Blumenthal's upcoming book "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime" dissects the path which staggers from the then-candidate-for-President, Governor George W. Bush stating, "I'm a uniter not a divider," to a Chief Executive who creates secret prisons on foreign soil and launches preventative war on faulty factual premises.

Salon.com excerpted Blumenthal's introduction to the book, "How bad is he?". (without a subscription, the viewer must navigate through various advertisements to view this article)

It is an amazing catalog of where the President has traveled in domestic and international affairs and a sad statement of what the country has received in terms of marginal support for an Amdinistration bent on power and control.

A single paragraph from the first several passages sets the tone:

"Trying to remove the suspicion that falls on conservative Republicans, he pledged that he would protect the solvency of Social Security. On foreign policy, he said he would be "humble": "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us." Here he was criticizing Clinton's peacemaking and nation-building efforts in the Balkans and suggesting he would be far more restrained. The sharpest criticism he made of Clinton's foreign policy was that he would be more mindful of the civil liberties of Arabs accused of terrorism: "Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that." This statement was not an off-the-cuff remark, but carefully crafted and presented in one of the debates with Vice President Al Gore. Bush's intent was to win an endorsement from the American Muslim Council, which was cued to back him after he delivered his debating point, and it was instrumental in his winning an overwhelming share of Muslims' votes, about 90,000 of which were in Florida."

There are two years and several months to his tenure left. One can hope the country doesn't suffer more damage by even bolder escapades both domestic and worldly by this President.

Cyclical Grieving

Akin to the day that "will live in infamy", the press and popular media use this day (and the preceeding week) to harken back to a tragic event. Prior to this week of course, there was the rumination on what one year of efforts had wrought for Hurricane Katrina survivors along the Gulf Coast and in New Orleans. It is doubtful whether any news story will make its way to national attention from that area of the country tonight. That is the nature of the beast that is the popular media.

Of course this day will have special meaning to those who survived the ordeal or who had loved ones parish on planes or in buildings. It is not as though they do not suffer through reminders of the loss on a daily basis, but getting to the actual date means wading through the morass of sentimental stories and broadcasts by the media outlets.

Is this type of remembrance helping those who still grieve or the larger population in America? Is reading the names of all those who died inside and around the Twin Towers aiding someone's recovery? Maybe there are some who find it reassuring, but it has the sound of extending anguish and living with an always-heavy heart.

What happened that day was a crime of epic proportions, the sole intent of which was to inflict massive damage and incite chaos. To revisit this year after year fulfills that damaging cycle. One can hope that survivors affected by the events find a way to accept their losses and begin to find emotional healing in whatever form that may take.

Yearly mourning isn't recovery; it is prolonging.

Countdown To Mid-Term Elections

Another event and another maneuver to restate to the American public how incredibly close we all are to being wiped of the face of the earth with another terrorist attack. The Republicans in Washington D.C. are intensely worried for their jobs and positions within Congress, so again the security issue was polled and it must be the last thing that the American public has yet to cede over to Democrats for guidance. Disaster relief, health care reform, Social Security, foreign occupations, the list goes on and on where the Republicans have lost tremendous ground.

Hence, the Republican strategists are left with their last all-out gamble.

The President leads the pack with this speech on Wednesday. The main thrust of the speech was to finally identify that the CIA has held captive many suspects outside of the normal detention regime in Guantanamo. Recalling the furor over the release of this information in the press of the so-called Black Sites, it seems unusual that the Administration would now find it useful to bring these men into the limelight only two months before the Congressional mid-term elections. Yet there they were, almost three minutes into the speech:

"In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. This group includes individuals believed to be the key architects of the September the 11th attacks, and attacks on the USS Cole, an operative involved in the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and individuals involved in other attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians across the world."

After two, three, possibly four-plus years of interrogation they are just now ready to be exiled to Cuba to face military courts. Interesting. It will be interesting to learn in the coming year if there are CIA agents who might shed light on what really was the trigger to expedite these prisoners out of the Black Sites. Political motivations might be on the mind.

One might wonder what happens to an al Qaeda suspect captured tomorrow; three years of being ferried from Poland to Egypt to destinations unknown, only to resurface in 2009 at a U.S. military base? President Bush made no mention that the CIA program was finished, just that those in the current program would be mailed back to a place where a group like the Red Cross could see them and find out if they are being treated humanely. And it was repeated once more that the United States does not torture its prisoners, and lawyers for the CIA and Justice Department found nothing wrong with detainees treatment. It cannot be presumed that the program has been abandoned.

President Bush then places Abu Zubayda in the fray.

"Within months of September the 11th, 2001, we captured a man known as Abu Zubaydah. We believe that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community believes he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained, and that he helped smuggle al Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan after coalition forces arrived to liberate that country. Zubaydah was severely wounded during the firefight that brought him into custody -- and he survived only because of the medical care arranged by the CIA."

Ron Suskind's book One Percent Solution makes several points relating to Abu Zubayda. From his investigation, he was told that Zubayda was treated for his gunshot wounds, but only after being interrogated with the understanding that his treatment would not come until he started to give up information. More importantly, when CIA investigators opened his journal they found it surprising that he wrote in the voice of three separate and distinct people. It is not easy to trust the information of a detainee with split-personality disorder.

Beyond even this, officials disclosed to the administration that the value of Abu Zubayda was that of a lower-level al Qaeda operative who was close to logistics in terms of moving people around (thinking in terms of travel agent) more than planning operations and attacks. "We believe that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden," is how the President referred to him. It seems that even if Abu Zabayda was low-level he should be placed on trial for what he did (driving the car during a bank robbery is just as illegal as going into the bank and pointing a gun) and given justice as best possible. Yet he has been in custody since 2002 and is only now ready to be ushered into military courts.

The President went on to describe further links of interrogation to captures to foiled plots. They may all be true. They are certainly things that we cannot verify as a general public since Americans will not have access to interrogation records, witness accounts, nor can the veracity of these statements be corroborated by an independent actor.

"Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. By giving us information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives."

Quite difficult to disprove, yes?

Onto the timing of this release of detainees from CIA custody. These are the people most directly related to the attacks on the Twin Towers and on D.C.. September 11th has played a critical part in the role of Republicans at the national level, enabling candidates and elected officials to couch their dialogue with their consituents in a way which most of the public will agree with them. "We were attacked, and we have to be tough. We're Republicans, and we're tough." This is not so when it comes to the occupation of Iraq where the story is the United States invaded and routed the Iraqi military and won the battles, but has yet to see an advance in terms of successful occupation. Iraq is the swamp, and September 11th the gruesome reminder of stronger times.

So to take this time to remind the American public of September 11th viscerally by bringing out Arab names and linking them directly to those events is critical to get the American public away from thinking about 1.5 billion dollars a week going into Iraq's civil war. It is currently working in that lead stories are going to focus on what the President is saying lately and later provide a cursory report on what is not going well in Iraq (Soldiers and Marines being killed, sectarian-based civil war, bungled projects and little to no oversight of contractors).

Forgive the American sports analogy, but when a football team is losing and little time is left on the clock, the offense needs to execute quickly and depend on the opponent's defense to allow such short-term gains in the hope of keeping the "big play" from occurring. Hence, the Administration and the RNC are going to try and scare the public as quickly as possible with an inflated threat which harkens to the memory of the World Trade Center falling. Their hope must be that Democrats don't respond with a potent retort but keep mentioning the bad side of Iraq with a constant beat which would appear to folks as a sign that Democrats aren't caring enough to protect the country from ne'er-do-wellers.

If repetition of fear is not enough, the second to last play in the playbook is "justice". At the end of his remarks, President Bush introduced this bone for House Republicans (and to a lesser extent, Senate Reupblicans):

"... the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program. In its ruling on military commissions, the Court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as "Common Article Three" applies to our war with al Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article Three are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges. And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act -- simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.

...

So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act ... . Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.

The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted -- but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks, and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority."(Applause.)

The quote is edited for length, but the context remains unchanged. The President is insisting that in order to have justice against the terrorists of September 11th, he needs Congress to allow him certain things under the law. A rewording of what might constitute a war crime, a gesture to ensure that those who follow the DTA really do comply with Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention, and if an interrogator gets too rough with a suspect that the suspect cannot sue in U.S. courts. This in conjunction with any changes that might be forthcoming to FISA is sure to pin on the Democrats' lapel of "weak". Republicans in both houses can vote for this and then go to their districts and lament the failure of Democrats to mete out justice to our enemies.

So a heretofore secret program is revealed but in the context of bringing to justice the attackers of America so long as Congress with less than 20 working days can create and approve legislation permitting our President to act. It almost sounds lyrically Rovian in nature.

Has this ever been done before? The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was fought by Administration up to the point when the 2002 mid-term elections entered the equation, then suddenly that too was imperative. So imperative in fact that it also required the President to rid the Department of unionized workers which the Democrats were against. Translation: "Democrats won't protect America." That cycle also marked the debut of Iraq as a wedge issue with obvious results. Naturally 2004 faced much the same question, and even at that time there were signs that the country faced instability with the military occupation in full force.

If the Republicans wish to stave off defeat in November by playing the terror card relentlessly, then the Democrats had better come prepared. What might possibly play well is a guarantee by Congressional figures to move funds to finding bin Laden no matter where he is in the world. This reminds the public that the Adminstration left that door ajar before starting the civil war in Iraq, taking valuable time and monies from removing the head of al Qaeda. If they were to take this on with some ferocity, the public might find it much more palatable to give the Republicans a rest.

President Bush enjoys the sense of being the hero, the tough guy who is strong enough to lead Americans through these times. This myth is teetering precariously today.

A Loss In The Doctrine Column

It came with so much bravado in June of 2002. It was aggressive, it was massive, and it would take all of four years for it to fall over after just one implementation. That speech, delivered before the graduating class at West Point, defined President Bush's vision for American military power projected outward.

Some brief snippets from that speech:

"This war [on terror] will take many turns we cannot predict. Yet I am certain of this: Wherever we carry it, the American flag will stand not only for our power, but for freedom. (Applause.) Our nation's cause has always been larger than our nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors human liberty. We will defend the peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent."

...

"The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power. (Applause.)"

Many parts of this speech prove to be the jumping off point where the Administration felt obliged to lay the foundation for an attack on Iraq and thereby draw a connected line from the battle against the terrorists who sent their deeds from abroad, to the governments not connected to Al Qaeda.

From this speech a doctrine was born. Possibly still-born, but born nonetheless. In the past few days, several newspapers have written articles expanding on many analysts' takes on said doctrine. The San Francisco Chronicle ran "Iraq war has Bush Doctrine in tatters" and the Christian Science Monitor published "Has the Bush doctrine failed?".

The consensus of those who felt the foreign policy initiatives had failed cite the current struggle of sectarian violence/civil war in Iraq, the perceived heightened tensions of America's allies, and the increased negative opinion of the United States in the Arab world. Those who defend the Bush doctrine state that Iraq has had elections and is growing its defense forces, and may state that Libya gave up its weapons programs making the world safer.

So is the doctrine "dead"? It can only really die if the Administration itself sets a different agenda for foreign policy initiatives and follows through with that change. As can be witnessed in the Israel/Lebanon fighting in August 2006, the President did not see it necessary to ask Israel to stop its thorough attack on Hizbullah and the civilian populations inside Lebanon. Secretary of State Rice went on what appeared to be futile missions to collect a cease fire from both sides to no avail. It even appeared that her mission was against White House wishes.

If there were a central theme to President Bush's foreign policy initiative, it was an ideological mission to further democracy around the globe. In action, it appears that the mission centers on areas where America's interest in resources is most vital, rather than where there is a strict lack of democracy. Furthermore, when Congress voted on delivering democracy to Iraq via armed combat "as a last resort", it was less due to free and fair elections and more to do with nuclear holocaust and chemical weapons. Had the Administration come to the House and the Senate with a single motive of installing a bicameral legislature or parliamentary form of government for Country A, it would have most assuredly been voted down.

The instruments that were used in Iraq are now found to be quite wanting in terms of success. Military occupations of a foreign land don't breed democratic government. The population itself will drive that force, and if that drive is overpowered by a desire to separate from another or a desire for retribution, then no number of men and women in U.S. uniforms can make them adopt what we want. In addition to not founding a stable country, let alone a smoothly functioning democracy, the occupation of Arab lands furthers the goal of radicals in want to either expel the U.S. forces, or even worse, deliver a compensatory blowback by way of terrorism within the borders of America.

It would also appear that public opinion of the United States among the Arab populations in the Middle East has sunk precipitously in the past year. While it is difficult to say what the involvement of American diplomacy meant in the Israel/Hizbullah/Hama conflict to the general public opinion, it is easy to say that the actions of the White House did not bolster the country's image in the region.

If the Bush doctrine had as its goal to increase American security, to broaden democracy, and to strengthen our relationships throughout the world, then by these measures the foreign policy of the past four years has done strictly the opposite of those achievable and agreeable goals. By attaining their ends through militaristic means, each goal becomes stressed to the breaking point. Each next step becomes exponentially more difficult; that is if there are even steps left to take as in the occupation of Iraq.

The doctrine is not dead so long as the President adheres to it; regarding whether or not the policies are winning anything appears to be a closed case. Mark one up for the loss column.

The Tale Of A Kidnapping

More than a few months ago, Jill Carroll was released by her kidnappers in Iraq and came home with much fanfare as one of the very few brights spots of news from the war-torn country. Though she was relieved to be home, she did not immediately give a full account of how she was abducted nor her treatment at the hands of the insurgents.

Through the Christian Science Monitor and over ten parts, Ms. Carroll tells the tale of her abduction and her detention. It is quite a powerful story of what gathering news from outside the Green Zone was like, and why not many reporters venture out of those confines today. It is a powerful story.

On The Connecticut Senate Race And Control In Iraq

A great deal of attention was paid to the primary election held in the state of Connecticut this past Tuesday. Senator Joe Lieberman versus businessman Ned Lamont pitted the three-term incumbent against a single-issue candidate for the right to compete in the general election under the Democrat banner.

The single issue won.

While Senator Lieberman is not resigned to the fact that he has lost his Senate seat just yet, there does appear to be a greater issue here - unbridled support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq might hurt candidates that still need to appeal to those in the middle of the electorate. While any primary usually attracts those most motivated to vote in any election cycle (meaning those more politically active and interested), all those in the House may not take too lightly the idea of siding with the Bush Administration's single message which is "stay the course." From the current polling data, 60% of Americans believe the war and subsequent occupation a mistake.

It may well become diametrically defining issue of the nation come this November as it was in all of the races in 2004.

Related to this issue, it was interesting to hear the opinions of one Rory Stewart regarding how life appears on the ground within the confines of Iraq. Part of his book The Prince of Marhses has been excerpted on Salon.com. His direct participation in the lives and affairs of those in and around Maysan demonstrate the tremendous complications one undertakes when invading and occupying a foreign land.

To his credit, he made mention while making a guest appearance on a radio show that no matter how well one planned to set up the bureaucracy to fill the void of post-Baath control there really is nothing better to be done. His sense that an occupying force would get the situation invariably wrong is a lucid assessment given the current climate of sending more ground troops to Baghdad in order to improve the tense situation. The United States fixes things by putting more money, more security, and more boots on the ground which may well act as a destabilizing force to the existing hierarchy of the country.

The book should be a good read.

They Made Us Do It

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres knows who is responsible for the deaths of many children, women, and elderly in the town of Qana in southern Lebanon. Hizbullah is the party that killed all of those people.

When asked who was responsible for the civilian deaths in Qana, Peres -- a former Israeli prime minister -- said, "Totally, totally it's (Hizbollah's) fault."

This line of reasoning is astonishing to say the least.

Imagine an armed bank robber who flees the scene of the crime only to be followed by the authorities. The thief breaks into a house and closes the door behind him. The police follow in and after rushing through the door, they see a figure duck into a dark room; they open fire. The victims are a mother and child who were running away from where the criminal had just escaped via the back door.

The police chief comes out and excuses the officers of wrong doing since it was the bank robber's fault that those two innocents were killed. This type of argument would not stand, as the officers have a responsibilty to aprehend the criminal while not harming the rest of the law-abiding public. They are first to identify the subject before using lethal force.

Certainly the authorities would not have been in the house with guns drawn had the criminal in this scenario not created the condition first, but his actions do not absolve the authorities of their duty to the public. "Shoot first and ask questions later," is meant to highlight the dubious ethical and moral nature of such an action - there is no second chance to revoke the decision.

Retuning to the Qana incident, Isreal conducted a severe bombing campaign on the village and in pursuing Hizbullah forces, the Israeli Defense Forces destroyed a building which was being used as a makeshift bomb shelter by residents. By dropping bombs on a village Israel was accepting a risk of civilian casualties in a cavalier manner. When such an event happens, they are no longer responsible for their actions since Hizbullah has tied their hands.

If this is the rationale, then no one in Lebanon is safe. Israel will have a free hand to take intelligence of where they sense Hizbullah is operating from and launch an assault on a populated area without regard to repercussions. If the people of Lebanon do not like this policy, then they can make Hizbullah stop. How they would make them stop is not explained by Peres since it seems readily apparent that a much-vaunted military such as the IDF cannot stop Hizbullah very well either.

It is inexcusable for Israeli officials to switch the onus onto those they fight for their missteps and poor execution of battle operations. Hizbullah has its myriad faults in their attacks against towns in Israel, yet this should give Israel less room, not more, in excusing wanton destruction and loss of civilian life.

What To Hope For

Over the recent two to three weeks, it has been mentioned on current event talk shows that Baghdad will be receiving additional reinforcements via an American supplement of approximately 4,000 troops along with 4,000 Iraqi security forces. The hope is to repress the sectarian civil war and keep the unity government stable.

The question posed more often though is, "What is the next milestone?" The past markers that the Adminstration would point to as signs of success have all come and gone. Elections here, the constitutional process in terms of drafting and a vote, and then the formation of a final government were all followed by press announcements of how the citizens of Iraq were choosing democracy and freedom over terror and killing.

Yet now, there is nothing on the horizon that becomes the next marker in terms of progress. The United States will continue its occupation of the country and the American government has no immediate plans for a draw down in force structure on the table. The costs of operating in the arid land is close to 1.5 billion U.S. dollars per week. The cost in terms of injured and killed to American forces is a constant flow of a casualties daily, lately averaging two deaths per day, and several more wounded. A tally of Iraqi deaths is hard to gauge, but multi-execution reports are too numerous to list here, and often come in totals of the 50 to 80 variety.

So what can an American hope for in Iraq in the coming months? What is the United States' responsibility if the Maliki government in Baghdad collapses and a real power struggle breaks out? What happens if everything suddenly reverses itself and things become positively stable in every province of Iraq? What will the Bush Administration do to change course?

When One War Is Not Enough

Over the course of the past week, events have made a precipitous slide within and without the borders of Israel. It began with the capture of Cpl. Gilad Shalit on June 25th, 2006. Militants within the borders of the Gaza strip were able to capture the corporal after slipping through the border via an underground tunnel. Almost immediately, Israel put the group responsible and Hamas as a whole on notice that it was not going to negotiate an exchange. Not only were the Israelis not going to negotiate, they moved militarily back into the Gaza strip where the kidnappers were understood to be hiding the soldier.

A mess quite serious in itself.

Adding the events of July 12th and things are moving quite quickly with very few prognosticators guessing where things end.

Hizbullah militants set up and detonated an explosive against an Israeli tank beyond the border of Lebanon - i.e. an incursion into Israeli territory. Two Israeli soldiers were then taken hostage by the attackers back into Lebanon. The incursion was followed by an announcement by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah of Hizbullah that a "prisoner" exchange would be in order for the safe return of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.

Israel again replied that under no circumstances were they going to negotiate a trade. The demands of Israel as it stands today are:

1. Return of the two soldiers


2. Pushing Hizbullah north of the Litani River (further away from the Israeli border)


3. A halt to rocket attacks on Israel

While each of these particular events involves a smoldering fire from the past, the fear is that the escalation in military tit-for-tat fighting will embroil further nations in the Middle East to join in the fray. Syria and Iran head that list, but at the moment it looks less likely that this entrée will come to pass. This won't stop Iranian officials from expressing rhetorical statements that sympathize with Hizbullah and the Palestinians. It hasn't prevented the Iraqi Parliament from condemning Israel either for the invasion of southern Lebanon.

At some point there will be a cooling off period (just not very soon) and all sides will pick up the pieces.

It should go without saying that what is not needed now is another step by the United States to conduct a military operation in hopes of further securing a country that is not our own. Over the past weekend, many conservative voices on the far right concluded that to not strike back at Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria) with our military is to be seen as weak. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard led the charge on the weekend political talk show circuit, as well in his editorial titled, "It Is Our War".

Beyond the assertion that America is now tightly in the grasp of an imagined war with radical Islam, Kristol envisions a world bathed in conflagrations as far as the eye can see. Bombing Iran now is a must. Accepting the wrath of world condemnation a necessary price for "showing a strong America," will be a certainty. Siding strictly with Israel making things more difficult in Iraq (with a predominantly Shi'ia population), well, the U.S. was tiring of propping that place up anyway.

War, war, and more war. Some neoconservative principles are best left to the historical dustbin where they belong.

Voicing National Concerns

Texas Representative Ron Paul gave a speech in the House that entertains the subject, "Why Are Americans So Angry?" It is well worth reading.

Some insightful passages:

"No matter how noble the motivations of political leaders are, when they achieve positions of power the power itself inevitably becomes their driving force. Government officials too often yield to the temptations and corrupting influences of power.

But there are many others who are not bashful about using government power to do "good." They truly believe they can make the economy fair through a redistributive tax and spending system; make the people moral by regulating personal behavior and choices; and remake the world in our image using armies. They argue that the use of force to achieve good is legitimate and proper for government -- always speaking of the noble goals while ignoring the inevitable failures and evils caused by coercion.

Not only do they justify government force, they believe they have a moral obligation to do so."

"We are constantly told that the next terrorist attack could come at any moment. Rather than questioning why we might be attacked, this atmosphere of fear instead prompts giving up liberty and privacy. 9/11 has been conveniently used to generate the fear necessary to expand both our foreign intervention and domestic surveillance."

Emphasis added.

"Constitutional and moral restraints on war should be strictly followed. It is understandable when kings, dictators, and tyrants take their people into war, since it serves their selfish interests -- and those sent to fight have no say in the matter. It is more difficult to understand why democracies and democratic legislative bodies, which have a say over the issue of war, so readily submit to the executive branch of government. The determined effort of the authors of our Constitution to firmly place the power to declare war in the legislative branch has been ignored in the decades following WWII."

This and many more clear-headed observations are included in his remarks.

And The Band Plays On In The Green Zone

After the surprise visit last month by President Bush to Iraq's Green Zone, the news seemed to take on a positive note. The Iraqi cabinet and government was fully in place after many months of uncertainty, and Zarqawi was killed with the help of two 500-pound bombs.

Those were the good old days.

On the return trip home, the President said:

"I assured them that we'll keep our commitment," Bush said ... "I also made it clear to them that in order for us to keep our commitment and be successful, they themselves have to do some hard things. They themselves have to set an agenda. They themselves have to get some things accomplished."

One month later, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is pleading with his country to avoid further bloodbaths like that which took place yesterday when 60 were murdered in and around Baghdad. From Reuters:

Maliki has vowed to disband militias, some tied to parties in his government, that are carving Baghdad into sectarian no-go areas. But he faces an uphill struggle as most, including the Mehdi Army, have powerful allies inside the ruling coalition.

Sectarian violence will not subside for quite a long while no matter the official pronouncements from the Executive's office.

Ending The Occupation Of Iraq

The Senate got through the long slog today of defeating the proposed withdrawl plans of Democrats today. It was so popular that Senators voted to defeat it twice.

What is it about the occupation of Iraq that is so popular among the Administration and Congressional Republicans? There is certainly something in it for them that they continue to resist the idea of an end to an armed presence inside that country. Else, how does one explain the persistence?

It is far from a still-raging war. That would imply that: A) Congress actually declared war which it did not do in the case of Iraq, and B) that President Hussein's armies still were functioning and the capital and the countryside was under his control. The Iraqi Army was routed in scant time by the U.S. military, and the President himself declared that major combat operations were over. It is not knowable if that statement meant that minor combat operations were just beginning, but it was unequivocally accepted as a victory speech by President Bush.

What is left is a low-level civil war (obviously the result of unleashing the ethnic strife between three groups of people) and a resistance movement against the U.S. occupation. The insurgency does not exist to re-fight the war but to remove and resist the occupier. Those that are self-described jihadists (along the lines of al Qaeda in Iraq) number a small fraction of the total insurgency as can best be ascertained by those close to the events.

So the fall of Iraq as a nation has been accomplished, and a new government erected and blessed by the U.S. authorities stands in its place. Again, from the surface this does not sound like an ongoing war.

Let us add to this one very plain notion repeated often enough to be quoted verbatim, "as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down." It is said quite a bit actually. By its very nature, that rule explicitly implies that it is not the duty of the United States military to kill every last insurgent, or collar every single jihadist. From the Administration's own rhetoric, leaving is not to be based on when the last person like Zarqawi is dead. Hence there is no further victory to be had; the military presence acts more like a caretaker force until such time that Iraq's nascent army can take modest control.

Recall that the debate in the Senate focused on "surrender" and "cut and run," without aknowledging that even the President has not committed the Army, Air Force, and Marines to fully occupy Iraq until 100% peace is achieved. It is almost as if Republicans on the Hill are asking that the men and women who remain targets in Iraq to simply accept that this is their sole function. From what can be found on the web today about Iraqi security force levels the number approximately comes to 117,900. This accounts for Iraqi Army personnel, Support Forces, and Special Operation Forces. The Ministry of the Interior claims 145,500 individuals. 263,400 security personnel, and not many American servicemen have been called back home. How tall do those Iraqis have to stand up?

One can question whether the Iraqis would be able to maintain a stable country were it not for the American forces, yet should the civil war expand and consume the several provinces, will the U.S. take a side? covertly combat all ethnic groups and force a peace?

Cut and run? It was suggested that the euphimism for the Republican desire be "Sit and wait." Maybe it would help America to continue the debate without the quips and snips of the opposite side. Even still, Americans and Iraqis will continue to die for months if not years to come in an unending occupation.

At some point the American public will thoroughly sour of the adventure. Maybe then some sense will begin to take hold in Washington, D.C.

Creating The Threat And Believing In It

Every so often there are snippets of insight that come out by way of faithful investigators following a story for the long haul. Even items that are weeks, months, or years old bear covering if the story leads there.

By way of the Cunning Realist from Andrew Sullivan, we have a review of Ron Suskind's book The One Percent Doctrine by Barton Gellman.

In the book it is put forward that the Administration puffed up the resume of captured al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah. What was thought to be a top leader of the secretive terrorist organization may actually have been a mentally unstable member who was given primary duties of assisting members in moving people around such as wives and families of al Qaeda members. It was also known that his diary was written in the voice of three separate people. Not quite stable.

After his case was presented as such to top Administration officials, they continued with the theme that this was a top official of bin Laden's inner circle. President Bush alluded to Zubaydah as the "chief operating operator". Not to be shown up, the Vice President brought Abu back out in December of 2002, saying:

"...we've captured or killed many key leaders within the al Qaeda organization. These include Abu Zubaydah, bin Laden's chief of operations, who was seized last March in Pakistan and has been providing valuable information to U.S. interrogators".

Suskind puts forward that after it was known that Zubaydah wasn't as critical a piece of the terrorist network as was thought, steps were taken to add some pressure to his interrogation.

From the Washington Post review:

Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

To be fair, this was an Administration that in 2002 was still preoccupied with hunting down al Qaeda and their techniques were quite unpolished. They were also still contemplating if torturing suspects was legal.

If the story bears out to be true, is there still a question as to whether the Administration will use any device possible to convince citizens that they are protecting the country?

The President's Best Week Of 2006

One dead terrorist. A full complement of ministers installed in the Iraqi Prime Minister's cabinet. What appears to be a cogent and rational discussion on Iraq at Camp David. The long round-trip tickets to Baghdad and back for a meeting with Al-Maliki. Poll numbers that moved up to 38% job approval rating.

This may well prove to be the best week for President Bush of 2006. It will be difficult to determine if it is the best week of his second term until January 2009.

What seems likely is that Iraq will not become a miracle next week or next month. More violence and strife will befall the people of Baghdad and in Kirkuk. Basic services and security will be daily struggles for what may be years to come with or without the Unite States Army and the Marines presence. A grisly first-hand account of an event from June 14th. There will be more of these stories.

It may well be that there is more good news coming from Iraq of the Zarqawi kind, repleat with video of the bombs landing and photos of the blast site. Yet the civil war will continue to weigh heavily on both countries.

At least there was one good week.

Zarqawi Killed In Airstrike - Civil War Continues

From this morning's headlines America learned that Abu Musab Zarqawi was ambushed from the air last night and most likely killed. Iraqi forces apparently discovered the body after Zarqawi left the scene of the bombing for medical attention. Two women were also killed in the strike.

There is much to be thankful for when a radical along the lines of Zarqawi is removed from the picture though capturing him alive would have rendered vital information on various aspects of his group. Even if Zarqawi was propped up by the U.S. government to fit a need to incorporate terror, there is a very good chance that he was heavily involved in making lives much worse in Iraq.

Yet with all the puffery it could muster, the White House put forward the news as if Saddam Hussein had been captured. This is good news of course for the Executive branch, yet this is far from a sign of curtailing of violence in Iraq. Moreover, it was not the singular work of Zarqawi that exposed sectarian tensions but more than likely the democratic process and the fight for power in the country that has brought about the rifts between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

Far from being a moment when peace will settle in to the land of Iraq, the death toll will continue to rise day by day, and American forces will be placed further down the hole of occupying a land that is in civil war.

Book Review: How Would A Patriot Act?

Often linked to from this web log, Glenn Greenwald's book How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok is the short recap of the more recent revelations of government surveillance and secrecy in terms of wiretaps and executive power.

Greenwald is a Constitutional attorney in Manhattan. His politics had been worn far away from his sleeve before the terrorist hijackings on September 11, 2001. After this moment, he found himself in favor of an attack against Afghanistan. When the Administration pushed for a war in Iraq against a country that had not attacked us in 2001, his views began to turn away from support of the President and towards a more skeptical view of his policies and practices.

Then came the eavesdropping on phone calls. Americans participating in calls from or to foreign countries were being listened to without the Administration first obtaining a warrant. The explanation given by President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was that these were only calls from known numbers that were linked to terrorist organizations.

In December 2005, the New York Times disclosed that there was a secret program in which the Administration went around the FISA courts in order to eavesdrop on telephone calls. There is still relatively little known about the program other than an acknowledgement of its existence by the President after the story was reported. Congress was notified of its existence if one may conclude that if the leadership of each house was notified and sworn to secrecy then Congress as a whole knew of its existence.

Greenwald picks up on the story after the article and dissects the reasons and logic that supporters of the President and of the policy use to defend the eavesdropping. One by one, his view is that either the logic is flat out false (that FISA is unnecessary during a time of war) or that the justification of the country at war is enough to warrant drastic executive powers that curb civil liberties is a flimsy veneer meant to hide illegalities. There are many points that he takes time to outline, but the underlying theme in How Would A Patriot Act?, is that of a Presidency that has dizzying difficulties in distinguishing what is right and what is wrong.

Greenwald revisits the detention and removal of citizenship rights of two men by the names of Hamdi and Padilla who have been batted about in ethereal legal limbo for upwards of three years. Both men were labeled terrorists and detained without charges and without legal representation and locked up in military brigs. In Hamdi's case, the Supreme Court eventually ruled that the Executive does not have a Constitutional right to detain without charges a citizen of the U.S. For Padilla, a similar situation arose where the Attorney General (at the time Ashcroft) proclaimed his arrest as a terrorist attempting to plot a dirty bomb somewhere in the U.S. Thus, he was labeled an enemy combatant; an ill-defined status that allows for the Commander-in-Chief to decide what fate he may wish to mete on the subject. Before his detention could be challenged the Administration finally charged him with crimes that were unrelated to those claimed at the time of his original detention. More on Padilla from Glenn Greenwald's web log.

In closing his book, Greenwald focuses on why terrorism is so important to the White House and to the Republican-controlled Congress: fear. His suggestion is that with the fear of further attacks the conservative response of strength to the indifference of civil liberties will reward the government with greater control through electoral success. There must certainly be an honest belief within the West Wing and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that what is being done in the name of safety is really helping the country, yet one may only read the speeches at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City to learn how fear dominated the discourse.

In order to defend its policies whether they be torture, warrantless eavesdropping, rescinding habeas corpus, or an overly secretive state, President Bush made use of fear in order to quell any popular resentment at the loss of civil liberties. All of our lives could be wiped out tomorrow if he is not permitted to listen in to calls without a warrant. Never mind that the President very carefully told an audience in Buffalo, NY that when he talks about wiretaps there is always a court order involved. He knew that not to be the case, but when it would poll well to admit to illegally eavesdropping on American citizens if it was couched in, "I'm protecting you," language, then so it must be.

If the reader has the chance, this book is strongly suggested to better understand what it is that upsets those who wish their civil liberties not be trampled upon. Glenn Greenwald may not have delivered a book epic in length, but it captures the spirit of patriotism and indignation that is the movement against this Administration.

Visit Glenn's web log or buy the book from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Borders.

Civil War's Toll

When speaking of homicide, there are two separate frames to contend with in the popular media. The first probably consists of reporting murders within the country, and to that end it is likely to be a quick number and brief details on the nightly news of who was killed in a major metropolitan area. The second frame must contend with deaths outside of America, and then it is most likely a total reported via a conflict of some sort.

Just comparing basic statistics for a major metropolitan area inside the borders of the United States, the murder rate can be gathered year by year and compared historically. For the metro area in and around Washington D.C., the number of homicides for 2005 was 466. The year prior the number hit 420. Obviously that is more than one slaying per day in the general vicinity of the nation's capital and a grisly reminder of the rate of violent crime in the area.

For the month of April, Baghdad tallied almost 1,100 dead by violence. Pause on that figure for a moment. This is not crime-related violence, or a surge in drug gangs and turf wars. Rather, this is one ethnic group taking on another ethnic group and bodies are piling up.

If Baghdad has a homicide rate of 10,000 per year, would that be enough to state that there is a civil war raging in Iraq, or is it that a civil war is classified when one side wears dark blue uniforms and the other butternut gray?

Senate Majority Leader Bill "C-Note" Frist

A few months back, this web log reviewed the year that was for 2005, and one of the commentaries focused on the leadership qualities of Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. Or the lack of leadership from the southern Senator.

Just a few days ago, there was a well-timed press conference conducted by Sen. Frist introducing the Republican idea that Americans needed some extra money in their pockets to take to the pumps. It has not gone over so well on either side of the aisle.

Again Frist faces what will look like in hindsight an opportunistic grab at publicity and 2008 voter appeal intertwined with public policy. The idea of reimbursement must have seemed appealing at some point, but the details and the logic of the legislation fall by the wayside when the shorthand rationale is explained as "throw money at the voters".

From Dictionary.com:
Leader- n 1: a person who rules or guides or inspires others

Senator Frist is having issues again with this noun.

The Imminence Of Iran

Today was the day the United Nations received a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding Iran's actions in regards to enriching uranium. Here's the first report from the New York Times, "Iran Is Not Cooperating, Agency Says". Without going into extreme detail, the article makes mention, "that after more than three years of an IAEA investigation, 'the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern.'" It would appear that the IAEA is looking for more information on the enrichment process, and not getting the answers they want.

Then comes this fine quote from America's representative at the U.N.:

''I think if anything, the IAEA report shows that Iran has accelerated its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, although, of course, the report doesn't make any conclusions in that regard,'' Bolton said.

His statement at first implies that the report "shows" that Iran is after nuclear weapons, and the second portion of his statement is a concession that the report does not say this. Interesting.

Further rattling of cages in the Mideast to follow.

Match this action against cooler heads that might say "not so fast", such as David Isenberg's opinion piece published at TomPaine.com and the Center for Defense Information entitled, "Saber Rattling Backed Up by Weak Intelligence." A quick passage:

Even if all the questions are answerable, much would still depend on having excellent intelligence. And our intelligence on Iran, to put it politely, stinks. U.S. News & World Report recently reported that Senate Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said that, “we have not made the progress on our oversight of Iran intelligence, which is critical.” Last year, the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction stated, “From Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons to the inner workings of al-Qaida, the intelligence community frequently admitted to us that it lacks answers.”

The United States will be planning future actions that are based on insufficient intelligence, or so it appears.

These are precisely the same type of arguments that would lead the United States into a sticky civil war in Iraq. The policy driving an attack on Iran would undoubtedly not follow that model - which quite possibly would leave the door open for a uniquely different Rumsfeldian blunder in Iran.

Iran may well be doing research which would lead them to a nuclear bomb. It may also be doing research which may lead to nuclear energy for its country. How much more difficult will this confrontation be when the Administration tries to bully Iran into doing what the U.S. wants?

About as difficult as affording a barrel of oil at $100-plus.

Five Times Too Many

Just yesterday, Karl Rove returned to the federal grand jury for a fifth time. That is not good news and it only allows critics to wonder whether his change in job duties was to allow him more time to prepare his legal defenses. This is not to say that being called before a grand jury is a sign of wrongdoing, but making multiple passes makes conflicting testimony possible.

Jason Leopold puts forward some ideas on what might be going on behind the scenes in the Valerie Wilson (Plame) CIA leak case to which Rove now is becoming a more prominent figure. Leopold's sources would suggest that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald knew he the originators of the leak were over a year ago, but the process of obtaining information from reporters prolonged the case.

In addition, much more attention is being paid to John Hannah, currently a senior national security aide in the Vice President's office. It may have been Hannah that gave Fitzgerald's investigation the pointer towards Irving Lewis Libby and Karl Rove. From the sound of the entire article, it was this lead and the reporters' own testimony that led to Libby's and Rove's desks.

It remains to be seen if the Vice President's Chief of Staff David Addington will put Hannah up for promotion.

Can It Get Any Worse?

The President, his Administration, and his policies are all suffering intensely during the spring of 2006. The phrase "new low" must be recurring far too often at the White House. Poll numbers have consistently fallen over the past twelve months to the now dismal 33% level. Can it go down even further from here?

As noted in the poll, it is now a first that Republican support for the President has dipped below the 70% number. To see further movement in these polls, it will likely be from the Republican side of the polling data as 11% of Democrats approve of the job the President is doing.

It appears that there will be little in the way of legislation that a GOP-controlled Congress will take on given the certain unpopularity of the President throughout 2006. Even if the White House manages to fend off a lurch to the Left in either or both houses of the legislative branch, there might be a few state legislatures that line up articles of impeachment.

Will George W. Bush find poll numbers dipping into the 20s soon?

Democracy, Mayhem And Destruction - Not Necessarily In That Order

To be certain that things are continuing to get worse, Patrick Cockburn penned this passage about the current conditions in Iraq. Some brief excerpts:

"I have been covering the war in Iraq ever since it began three years ago and I have never seen the situation so grim. More than a week ago, I was in the northern city of Mosul, protected by 3,000 Kurdish soldiers, but even so it was considered too dangerous to send out patrols in daytime. It is safer at night because of a curfew."

"I was in Lebanon at the start of the civil war in 1975. Baghdad today resembles Beirut then. People are being murdered solely because of their religious identity. A friend called to say he had a problem because his two half brothers had been born in Fallujah, the Sunni Muslim stronghold, and this was on their identity cards. If they were picked up by Shiite militiamen, a glance at their place of birth alone could get them killed."

And the conclusion of his piece:

"Three years ago, when Saddam's statue was toppled, Iraqis were promised their lives would get better. Instead Iraq has become the most dangerous place in the world."

When the nightly news in the U.S. begins to frame the news from Iraq as coming from the site of a civil war, only then will the American public begin to understand the full brunt of the cost that this escapade has incurred to both countries. The canard that President Bush often repeated, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to face them here," is a falacy of epic proportions. Over top of that falacious reasoning, it carries the logic of, "We'll raze your country to buy an ounce of security for ours."

Making It Up As We Go Along

It must be terribly difficult to find the sunny side of things in the White House this year. So little has gone right in the first three months that the success of Associate Justice Alito being confirmed to the Supreme Court might be measured by light years.

To wit, Americans may find it difficult to swallow that a document or state secret stays secret only until it becomes politically convenient to release it. Worse still, the decision to declassify is soley based on a need to repel a story or criticism and otherwise might just as well stay secret.

President Bush stands accused of such a ploy via Irving Lewis Libby's testimony before the grand jury. A brief excerpt:

The presidential authorisation prompted Mr Libby to disclose the information - taken from the government's secret National Intelligence Estimate - to Ms Miller at a meeting in July 2003, at the St Regis hotel in Washington DC.

It was during Mr Libby's several meetings with Ms Miller that he was accused of disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative married to former US ambassador Joseph Wilson.

It is always helpful to bear in mind the history of what transpired during 2003 when a war had been won, an insurgency had been birthed, and a pesky diplomat was suggesting that stories about Niger were debunked months prior to a State of the Union address.

Juan Cole provides such a timeline, with pictures no less.

The executive branch does have latitude when administering the laws of the land - it was supposed to as per Article II of the Constitution. The designers of that austere document might never have known that the Chief Executive would resort to pettiness when making decisions for the good of the entire country. Actually, maybe they did conceive of such leaders.

There is always Section 4. of Article II.

Immigration In The U.S.A.

Molly Ivins had an insightful tongue-in-cheek commentary regarding the immigration issue currently on the political talk show circuit. Titled "Immigration 101 for Beginners and Non-Texans", Ms. Ivins takes a stab at reducing illegal immigrants.

"Numero Two-o, should you actually want to stop Mexicans and OTMs (other than Mexicans) from coming to the United States, here is how to do it: Find an illegal worker at a large corporation. This is not difficult—brooms and mops are big tipoffs. Then put the CEO of that corporation in prison for two or more years for violating the law against hiring illegal workers.

Got it? You can also imprison the corporate official who actually hired the illegal and, just to make sure, put some Betty Sue Billups—housewife, preferably one with blond hair in a flip—in the joint for a two-year stretch for hiring a Mexican gardener. Thus Americans are reminded that the law says it is illegal to hire illegal workers and that anyone who hires one is responsible for verifying whether or not his or her papers are in order. If you get fooled and one slips by you, too bad, you go to jail anyway."

The point being that people from many places come here for work - to make money to send back home - because they know they can find that job. Employers are eager to save money in a capitalist-style economy, so they continue to hire cheap labor.

Hence, if one is serious about slowing down the rate of illegal immigration, one might wish to curtail the sugary nectar that is bringing the worker bees over to the field.

Groups and individuals that hire workers with little background check or desire to know the legality of their workers would not be friendly to this type of enforecement that Ivins suggests. The House Republicans likely will not be able to produce a piece of legislation that will satisfy their nativists base along with their corporate benefactors.

For the most part, the Democrats appear to be working on the margins while the Republicans try and figure out which policy will come closer to a political victory. The prediction: Immigration will be a third-rate issue come November 2006. Coming in first will be Iraq and the Administration's grand policy on nation-building as well as general security. Second on the scale may be institutional corruption of Republican making.

Democrats may well find an opportunity to claim some form of solidarity this year.

Good News From Iraq

After several months, the journalist Jill Carroll has been released and appears to be well and unharmed physically from the ordeal. This story came up before here she had originally been captured. As was mentioned before, she had attended a school in this area and it was one of the few times that a national story came through this town. Everyone should be pleased by this outcome and her family must be ecstatic right now.

Certainly good news out of Iraq, but certainly not the type that would satisfy the conservatives in the United States. The mere fact that a reporter who challenged the conventional wisdom that security is so adrift inside Iraq that one can't go to the source for stories is abducted herself and appears on the nightly news making announcements for the captors explicitly brings home the point that security is not viable there yet.

And judging by some comments made by an officer in the field, things are not going to be moving, on the whole, in a positive direction for quite some time. At Paul Rieckhoff's web log on the HuffingtonPost.com:

So, I asked "The Cardinal" one simple question: "What do you say when people say the media doesn't tell enough good news stories out of Iraq?"

His response:

"I never hear that because we all here know the good news stories are bullshit and do not really affect the mission in any way. It's like this thing we keep saying here about all the new people we've recruited for the iraqi police. It leaves out the fact that my platoon was in a 40 minute gun fight with the iraqi police. So you recruited more of them ... awesome!

...

"the iraqi army is making progress and we're handing over more and more to them everyday." Complete bullshit. What's the good news in the fact that all their logistics, medical, engineering, staff function, etc. is being done by us? ALL OF IT.

The full post is here. One might not find a good deal of inspiration in the notes that this soldier passes back from the field, yet it sounds suprisingly different than what the Administration senses the situation to be.

Solid, encouraging news should be disseminated from Iraq if it exists, yet if there is insecurity rampant throughout the streets of Baghdad, a "unity" government has not come close to forming, and men are discovered in the morning with bullet holes in their skulls, then that is the news from Iraq. Anything else is just a feel good piece to make those in the audience not question what is really going on in country.

Bring On The Next Three Years

Some headlines after three years:

Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 4
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, nearly 1,500 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers on Sunday sought to root out insurgents from farming villages an hour's drive north of the capital, and at least 35 people died in insurgent and sectarian violence nationwide."

Bush predicts 'victory' three years after Iraq invasion
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - Three years after invading Iraq, President George W. Bush said he had a strategy for "victory in Iraq" while administration officials denied that the country had sunk into civil war."

Iraq War Anniversary Marked With Protests
"PORTLAND, Ore. - The third anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq drew tens of thousands of protesters around the globe, from Portland to hurricane-ravaged Louisiana to Australia, with chants of "Stop the War" and calls for the withdrawal of troops."

Iraq in civil war, says former PM
"Iraq is in the middle of civil war, the country's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has told the BBC. He said Iraq had not got to the point of no return, but if it fell apart sectarianism would spread abroad."

Rumsfeld: Leaving Iraq like giving Nazis Germany
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leaving Iraq now would be the same as handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a column published on Sunday, as retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton called Rumsfeld incompetent and urged him to resign."

The executive branch is in severe trouble. There is no way out of Iraq while trying to simultaneously claim victory at something, anything so as to save face. Victory was a relatively small-sized military force quickly traveling from the border between Iraq and Kuwait and capturing Baghdad in a month's time. This the Army, Air Force, and Marines did wonderfully on the ground. A victorious occupation is an entirely different matter.

Three years of force. One hundred fifty-six weeks of rolling blackouts. Seventy-eight fortnights of haphazard reconstruction. Thirty-six months of learning about new devices meant to explode and kill. One thousand, ninety-six days of instability with the return address - U.S.A.

If there is any reason to reject imperialism, it is Iraq. If there are two reasons to reject the Domino Theory - forced governmental change 'spreading' outward - it is Vietnam and will be Iraq. If there is a yardstick that measures gross criminal negligence, it will point to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue circa 2001-2008.

Bring on the next three years.

Foreign Policy: Iran As The Next Iraq

For the past four to five months the Administration has been stepping up the heat on Iran. One might deduce from this current dialogue on the nightly news programs that Iran is in violation of some U.N. resolution and is building a nuclear bomb as we speak. Hence, President Bush needs to consider all options when dealing with Iran.

So it begins.

The public must be incredibly careful when understanding what this Administration will say with regards to the evident facts of a situation. The almost never-ending list of statements which carefully step away from reality will be legendary twenty years hence. It would appear that this situation will not be much different.

Here are the latest events:
President Bush speaking on the National Security Strategy 2006

In a 49-page national security report, the president reaffirmed the strike-first, or pre-emptive policy he first outlined in 2002. Diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons, Bush said.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur — even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.

The U.S. House wishes to put forward legislation that will sanction foreign companies that do business with Iran.

"... Illinois Republican [Henry Hyde] said the bill could "become a powerful tool to prevent Iran's development of weapons of mass destruction."

The State Department had said on Monday the mandatory sanctions would "create tensions with countries whose help we need in dealing with Iran, and shift the focus away from Iran's actions and spotlight differences between us and our allies."

The general pretext is that Iran is doing everything it can to get a nuclear bomb.

While Iran has made some missteps diplomatically in this affair, the general perception that Americans have on this issue is skewed heavily in favor of what the West Wing wants them to believe.

Often mentioned here, Professor Juan Cole has some thoughts on the pretext for war with Iran.

Some of the more relevant quotes from his article:

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring.

And:

The nuclear issue is for the most part a pretext for the Americans to exert pressure on the regime in Tehran. This is not to say that proliferation is not a worrisome issue, or that it can be ruled out that Iran wants a bomb. It is to say that the situation simply has not reached the point of crisis, and therefore other motivations must be sought for the Bush administration’s breathless rhetoric.

President Bush used the terrifying idea of dirty bombs and chemical weapons being released on American soil with a return address of Baghdad, Iraq as the pretext for the last war. It is quite simply astounding that the same gameplan is being rehashed for Iran. The popular media should be just a bit wiser today with its questions for the President - he has given ample proof that one cannot trust his word alone on a subject.

Will The Iraqis Know Hope Anytime Soon

President Bush will be talking about Iraq more in the following days and possibly weeks as the political talking heads reported this morning here in America. The going thought-process behind this was to improve the lagging poll numbers from the general public in regards to the Adminstration's handling of Iraq.

As always, when the President chooses to bolster his vision to the electorate in terms of Iraq policy, the reverse of the vision rears up and steals the headlines. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, it happens before he even utters one sentence on the subject.

In a community made up of mostly Shiites, a car bomber and mortar fire tore through people, killing 44 and injuring upwards of 200 people.

The action is not to kill (that is the necessary byproduct though), but to foment the fundamentally unstable nature that is Sunni / Shi'ia relations. In other words, the action is the reaction.

No matter what the President will have to say in the coming speeches, it will not change anything on the ground in Iraq. The United States Armed forces can't change the way things are playing out within the borders and it must be especially frustrating for them to see the country trend downward over the past two years.

A very cogent point was made on an NPR broadcast over the weekend. The interviewer was asking the question, "What needs to occur to turn Iraq around?", to which the guest suggested that providing the security that would allow all of the streets to be safe for Iraqis would go a long way in improving the situation. This makes sense on paper, as most people will admit that being able to walk around one's neighborhood without the threat of explosions makes other good things possible. This point though spells out how difficult a task this is: it only takes one dedicated individual to revoke such security.

It must be clear to a great many in and out of Washington D.C. that the presence of American forces with all their appropriate power cannot stop an internal civil war in Iraq if one were to come. If there begins organized fighting, than an American outfit cannot be responsible for taking on both parties, nor can G.I.'s side with one group over the other (witness how well this path worked for America in Beirut).

There are no good options in the current situation. Removing American forces may still yet have a negative effect on the people of Iraq. Yet the spectre of the delicate situation going from bad to worse might make a decision to remove troops the wiser path in the long run for the Iraqis.

Then again, if war were to spread to the entire region, all hell could break loose.

Thank you very much Mr. President. May history treat you kindly.

Bring Pot To Slow Boil

For the past two weeks, the country of Iraq has been experiencing what might be described as small-scale violence: bombings, killings, and political fighting. There is no structured attacks from what those on the ground can detect, yet there is a notion that it is one side versus the other - Sunnis against Shi'as.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash speaks about what is currently going on, and said, "We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in." At this moment, it would be wise policy to fully understand and acknowledge what is transpiring in Iraq. Accessing the situation as a low-intensity civil war appears to be the conclusion of most analysts. One of the important aspects of this phase of Iraq's "development" may very well be the lack of security within the country provided by the United States, or rather, the destabilizing force that America provides the country. The citizens are left to pick a side, and hope for the best.

Yet, even when things are turning quite sour for the citizenry of Iraq, the Administration seeks to reassure Americans that things are alright. General Pace made an appearance on the Sunday news program "Meet the Press" and had fairly optimistic news on the situation:

GEN. PACE: I’d say they’re going well. I wouldn’t put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they’re going very, very well from everything you look at, whether it be on the political side where they’ve had three elections, they’ve written their own constitution, they’re forming their government. You look at the military side where this time last year there were just a handful of battalions in the field, Iraqi battalions in the field. Now there are over 100 battalions in the field. They had no brigades—that’s about 3,000 men each. Now they’ve got about 31 brigades. No matter where you look at their military, their police, their society, things are much better this year than they were last.

The General would not go so far as putting a "big smiley face" on the situation, but he does go far enough to put on a sunny, grinning, cheerful face in its place. One might be tempted to place a successful stamp on the most recent election, but even the results were reported as sectarian in nature and would further foment discontent. The government has not formed as of yet, and this is three months removed from the election that would decide the body of Parliament. Kirkuk is an all-too-real flashpoint with regards to the Kurdish population and the Turks. Baghdad appears to be a lawless city. Mosques are attacked, and young men are found dead "execution style".

It might be that the Administration in Washington sees the pot on the stove full of lukewarm water, but with more statements like those of General Pace surfacing, it appears the pot is not boiling at all - it is full of ice cold water.

When Do The Troops Come Home?

In the waning months of 2005, there were calls from certain quarters that the American occupation of Iraq was no longer benefiting either country, and that a draw-down of forces was in order. From the conservative wing, the calls of cowardice belted forth, and the President himself said that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq based on artificial time-tables set by "politicians in Washington."

At the outset of March 2006, there seems little hope now of the Administration withdrawing even a moderate amount of forces without putting on display the ultimate of hypocrisies. To disallow the option of removing forces from inside the country until the Iraqi forces can stand up on their own means that as the situation worsens or becomes more tangled, the President has no option but stay the course and leave American G.I.s in harms way.

Juan Cole's article in Salon is titled "Iraq's worst week - and Bush's". The following quote is perceptive:

Tactically, strategically and politically Bush now finds himself in the worst of all possible worlds. With Americans increasingly fed up with the Iraq debacle, he needs to start drawing down troops soon, but he can't do it while the country teeters on the brink of civil war. If civil war does break out, a U.S. withdrawal will look even more like cutting and running -- under these circumstances, not even Karl Rove will be able to figure out a way to get away with simply declaring victory and going home.

This is painting oneself into the smallest of corners. By using the idea of troop redeployment/ draw down / withdrawal as a hammer to pound the Democrats with as weak on Iraq, President Bush left himself no option for just this sort of eventual crumbling of the political structures in Iraq. If the entire idea of U.S. forces peacefully removing themselves from the situation is dependent upon preventing four well-armed insurgents bombing a mosque, than there is absolutely no control at the disposal of our leadership in America. It will be years before Iraq could begin to stabilize the political institutions that democracy needs in order to grow and thrive.

One might make the analogy that a father is trying to ask the unruly children to do something. It might go something like this, "We will not go to the dentist's office to have your cavities filled until you three calm down and behave like good boys and girls." If the father makes good on his supposed threat to the children, then the little ones have the control - so long as they don't behave, then they do not have to go to the dentist office and suffer through the procedure.

The lesson is, "be careful how you word your threat."

The window to change course came in 2005 when there was some hope and sense that the Constitution (however severely flawed) in Iraq could produce some governmental form that would hold responsibility, allowing the U.S. to define to the Iraqi people a set plan for turning control over to them. It may not have stopped the events that are currently set in motion today, but certainly it would have been agreeable to 80% of that population, as polls indicate currently. That window seems closed now, and any motion to take troops out now will definitely appear to be a panicked rush to the exits.

President Bush intimates that the troops will not come home until Iraq behaves like a good democracy should. This sounds very much like an artificial timetable set by a politician in Washington, D.C., does it not?