Upon exiting the West Wing, I phoned one particular detail into MSNBC: Toward the end I asked the President if he'd seen the Saddam Hussein execution video. He said he had, and when I asked where it "ranked" (among the mistakes of the war) he indicated it was just below Abu Ghraib in terms of damage -- meaning slightly less damaging. The President also noted the damage done at Haditha.Damn straight.
2007-01-11
Saddam's Execution and Bush's Reaction
Brian Williams, at the White House:
Bush's Broad Escalation
Forgive me, but I believe that the billing for Bush's speech included a "new strategy for Iraq." I think I listened pretty closely, and yet I heard only about new tactics, no new strategies. The strategy we're implementing is the same one that we have been - clear, hold and build. Granted, we've never been able to effectively implement this strategy, since we've never had enough troops in the country to conduct real anti-insurgency, but a paltry 20,000 wont change that. Increasing the number of troops only allows more of the same types of engagements we've been doing all along. It's the Operations Forward Together all over again.
So, once again, Bush confuses tactics with strategy. What we received in his speech was not a new strategy - it was a revised tactic. Increasing the number of troops in Baghdad is something we've done before, and it wont work.
There was, however, one remarkable new item in the speech concerning Iran and Syria:
To back up this pugilistic conclusion, we have the following, also from the speech:
Patriot missiles are used to shoot down aircraft or intercept ballistic missiles. Who has ballistic missiles and an airforce? Iran.
Joe Lieberman has been thinking along the same lines as the President, incidentally:
So, in conclusion, is it Gulf of Tonkin here we come? It's been established in the media narrative that Iran is operating inside Iraq, where we have 140k troops. Would it be difficult to have a skirmish leading to escalation? Of course not.
Let's hope life doesn't get too interesting, too quickly, eh?
So, once again, Bush confuses tactics with strategy. What we received in his speech was not a new strategy - it was a revised tactic. Increasing the number of troops in Baghdad is something we've done before, and it wont work.
There was, however, one remarkable new item in the speech concerning Iran and Syria:
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.Those paragraphs send a clear message. Allow me to walk you through it:We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.
- Iran is providing support for attacks on Americans.
- We will seek out and destroy the networks providing that support.
- Those networks exist inside Iran.
- Therefore, we will conduct military operations inside Iran.
To back up this pugilistic conclusion, we have the following, also from the speech:
"We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing - and deploy Patriot Air Defense systems to reassure our friend and allies."The implied question just screams at me. What possible threat could those defensive systems be deployed to combat? There's no chance of missile attack from Sadr's men, or even from Al Qaeda in Iraq. So what's up here? You can't use a Patriot to shoot down a Katyusha, which is the only type of rocket they would use in Iraq if they used rockets in Iraq, which they do not. After all, why use a rocket when a car bomb is so much easier to aim?
Patriot missiles are used to shoot down aircraft or intercept ballistic missiles. Who has ballistic missiles and an airforce? Iran.
Joe Lieberman has been thinking along the same lines as the President, incidentally:
While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran...These are radical statements. Both President Bush and his supports are stating that Iran is a declared enemy in the current war. What do you do with people you're at war with? Oh, right, you kill them and everyone on their block. Now, it is possible that President Bush is simply playing a rhetoric game, whereby, through bellicose and threatening verbiage, we force the Iranians to comply with our wishes. Then again, many hoped he was doing the same thing in the lead up to the Iraq War, and we all know how that developed. Such naive hope cannot be sustained.
So, in conclusion, is it Gulf of Tonkin here we come? It's been established in the media narrative that Iran is operating inside Iraq, where we have 140k troops. Would it be difficult to have a skirmish leading to escalation? Of course not.
Let's hope life doesn't get too interesting, too quickly, eh?
Modern Submarines and Littoral Waters
The fact that we have submarines in the Persian Gulf will come as a surprise to no one. However, when one of those submarines runs into an oil tanker, people sit up and take notice.
The problem, of course, is that much of the Gulf consists of littoral waters - shallow, choppy, coast-bound water that fills the sonar spectrum with noise. The average depth in the Strait is only about 25 meters, and the hull of the Los Angeles class fast attack sub is 10 meters just by itself, not counting the conning tower above that. Given the fact that 35% of the world's oil production travels through the Strait of Hormuz, it's a busy place - and tight to begin with because of the depth.
Under the mission conditions, the skipper would have to be under serious duress to order a surfacing. After all, what good is a submarine whose location the enemy knows? Perhaps, given the general tightness, this was inevitable, but it still rankles.
The problem, of course, is that much of the Gulf consists of littoral waters - shallow, choppy, coast-bound water that fills the sonar spectrum with noise. The average depth in the Strait is only about 25 meters, and the hull of the Los Angeles class fast attack sub is 10 meters just by itself, not counting the conning tower above that. Given the fact that 35% of the world's oil production travels through the Strait of Hormuz, it's a busy place - and tight to begin with because of the depth.
Under the mission conditions, the skipper would have to be under serious duress to order a surfacing. After all, what good is a submarine whose location the enemy knows? Perhaps, given the general tightness, this was inevitable, but it still rankles.
2007-01-10
"Hostile Enemies"
This is the kind of infuriating bullshit that patriotic Democrats have to put up with:
GRETCHEN CARLSON: You talk about the hostile enemy, obviously being Iraq, but hostile enemies right here on the home front. Yesterday Senator Ted Kennedy, proposing that any kind of a troop surge should mean there should be congressional approval of that.We are regularly equated with the terrorist enemy, and what do we do to that enemy? Oh right, we kill their asses. Calling for the execution of your political opponents puts you firmly in the Ann Coulter/Pol Pot camp of unacceptable political rhetoric.
2007-01-06
Saddam's Noose
Further verification that the execution of Saddam Hussein was a sectarian lynching:
A well-known Kuwaiti businessman is negotiating hard to own the noose which hung ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to death.My face still goes slack when I'm thinking about this. I can't quite summon the requisite surprise, or shock at this horrible news. It shorts a circuit in my head and I have to re-approach. The thought of handing such a victory to our enemy (who still hold an American soldier) just boggles me.
Reliable sources say the businessman's representatives have asked the Iraqi Ministry of Interior Affairs to sell the rope to them.
The businessman is apparently ready to pay any amount of money for the noose. According to sources, it is with Shiite leader Muqtada Al-Sadr and the businessman's representatives are negotiating with him.
Another Together Forward
Remember Operation Forward Together, where we surged troops into Baghdad in order for "one last shot" at victory in the Battle of Baghdad? No, I'm not talking about the current escalation Bush is proposing, but it does sound strikingly similar, doesn't it?
Anyway, did you know that there were multiple operations with names very like Forward Together? I was following this story fairly closely, and I wasn't aware of this until just recently. There was the original Operation Together Forward, which began on June 14. By July 24, the White House had admitted it was a failure. Then there was Operation Forward Together. Then there was Operation Together Forward II. Very well done, DoD, naming the various versions something slightly different in order to minimize the public impact of the failures. This must be the excellent influence of our psyops division. But who knows - maybe this is standard practice on missions the planners think are likely to go poorly.
Incidentally, General Caldwell gave us the assessment on how these security initiatives panned out. Even with three iterations of the plan - "adapting to win" the best way we know how - Caldwell had this to say by October 19:
Anyway, did you know that there were multiple operations with names very like Forward Together? I was following this story fairly closely, and I wasn't aware of this until just recently. There was the original Operation Together Forward, which began on June 14. By July 24, the White House had admitted it was a failure. Then there was Operation Forward Together. Then there was Operation Together Forward II. Very well done, DoD, naming the various versions something slightly different in order to minimize the public impact of the failures. This must be the excellent influence of our psyops division. But who knows - maybe this is standard practice on missions the planners think are likely to go poorly.
Incidentally, General Caldwell gave us the assessment on how these security initiatives panned out. Even with three iterations of the plan - "adapting to win" the best way we know how - Caldwell had this to say by October 19:
General Caldwell: Operation Together Forward has made a difference in the focus areas but has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.And the ISG weighed in thusly:
The results of Operation Together Forward II are disheartening. Violence in Baghdad—already at high levels—jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006. U.S. forces continue to suffer high casualties.So, this is sure to work spectacularly, huh? This nth corner, I am sure, is the final corner we have to turn in the ([[(N+1)/2]]+1)-dimensional space that is the Iraq War. (There are so many geometry jokes to be made with those corner references)
Pay-Go
Whoa, whoa, whoa! The first thing we did was implement Pay-Go?
The House voted overwhelmingly today to ban anonymous pet spending projects, known as earmarks, and to reinstate “pay as you go” spending rules.Good for us. In fact, it may be too good. Why not pass the expensive parts of the 100-hour agenda and then implement Pay-Go? Let's hope this doesn't force us to raise taxes too broadly.
2007-01-05
McCain's Surge Speech
The latest from the McCain-Lieberman Doctrine from someone who attended the American Enterprise Institute event:
You know what this means. It's time for the Committees to do their work and have hearings on whether or not it is possible to surge 40 - 50,000 troops for 2 years as McCain wants. Based on the reporting of the last year, I think we know how that inquiry will turn out.
Interestingly, at the rate people are being driven out of their homes in Iraq, the ethnic cleansers may in fact achieve an ethnically segregated Iraq, which might lead to stability. Could we be running a de facto 80% solution already? Could this stability happen before 2009? And can America bear the burden of presiding over an ethnic cleansing? Was this war worth that price?
2. The surge will be sustained for at least 2 years. Timelines embolden the Enemy, and so we shouldn’t set one for withdrawl. We’ve got to stay as long as it takes to “finish the mission.”I've read elsewhere that, although McCain used to be calling for an additional 20,000, he now says that it might require more. This, combined with this call for a sustained surge is how McCain will solve his political problem. Because Bush will implement "too small a force" for "too short a time," McCain will still be able to say that "if only we had done it my way, we would have won."
You know what this means. It's time for the Committees to do their work and have hearings on whether or not it is possible to surge 40 - 50,000 troops for 2 years as McCain wants. Based on the reporting of the last year, I think we know how that inquiry will turn out.
Interestingly, at the rate people are being driven out of their homes in Iraq, the ethnic cleansers may in fact achieve an ethnically segregated Iraq, which might lead to stability. Could we be running a de facto 80% solution already? Could this stability happen before 2009? And can America bear the burden of presiding over an ethnic cleansing? Was this war worth that price?
2007-01-04
Not Just Moqtada's Avatar
It was already bad, but this is deplorable:
Short Answer: even if we did "use our leverage" and make threats, Maliki knows Bush's military isn't going anywhere, so those threats carry no weight. They would laugh, assert their "sovereignty" and do it their way. The United States of America is treated as a paper tiger because they know that for Bush, leaving Iraq destroys his place in history - a price he will not pay.
With different leadership, we might have had a chance, but that "accountability moment" is past.
... said National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie... "There was an infiltration at the execution chamber."Allowing Moqtada's men do the lynching is just too much. I am beside myself. How could this have happened? Why didn't we use our considerable leverage to make sure they did this right?Echoing those accusations, a senior Interior Ministry official said the hanging was supposed to be carried out by hangmen employed by the Interior Ministry but that "militias" had managed to infiltrate the executioners' team.
"The execution was carried out by militias and outsiders. They put aside the team from the Interior Ministry that was supposed to carry it out," the official said.
Short Answer: even if we did "use our leverage" and make threats, Maliki knows Bush's military isn't going anywhere, so those threats carry no weight. They would laugh, assert their "sovereignty" and do it their way. The United States of America is treated as a paper tiger because they know that for Bush, leaving Iraq destroys his place in history - a price he will not pay.
With different leadership, we might have had a chance, but that "accountability moment" is past.
Saddam's Execution
Josh Marshall has made the developing Saddam Execution story one of his hobbyhorses, and he's riding it hard:
It boggles the mind when you contemplate the levels on which this screw-up operates. Managing the event of Saddam's death was a simple, small problem. It was the exceedingly rare sort of problem that you can literally put in a box - the scope of the event limited to a single room. It should have been such a powerful symbol for the country. Instead it was ruined... an opportunity ruined. Not that it would have been enough anyway, but every little bit helps. It's just unreal.
Saddam prosecutor Munkith al-Faroon, who pleaded with the members of the execution team taunting Saddam at the execution, yesterday recanted his claim that Iraqi National Security Advisor al Rubaie was one of the two governmental officials videotaping the execution with his cell phone.Talking Points Memo is his outfit, and he rigorously follows the subjects he adopts. On the subject of Hussein's execution there were shenanigans on many levels.Today he's saying that there actually weren't any people in the execution chamber taunting Saddam and hailing Moktada al-Sadr. The taunts, he now says, came from outside the execution chamber.
Must be fun to be him right now.
And yesterday's reports that a guard had been arrested over the video tape? Maliki advisor Sami al-Askari tells Reuters, no, didn't happen.
It boggles the mind when you contemplate the levels on which this screw-up operates. Managing the event of Saddam's death was a simple, small problem. It was the exceedingly rare sort of problem that you can literally put in a box - the scope of the event limited to a single room. It should have been such a powerful symbol for the country. Instead it was ruined... an opportunity ruined. Not that it would have been enough anyway, but every little bit helps. It's just unreal.
Bush's Continuing War on the Constitution
Bush's personal mission to sully as much of our constitution as possible continues.
Here's a Kieth Olbermann bit about which parts of the Bill of Rights we're left with after this Administration. It's from many months ago. Watch it.
President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.Nevermind that the Constitution says the Congress gets to make the laws. Nevermind that similarly clear issues of separation of powers have been decided in the past. Nevermind that the action Bush asserts is his right was explicitly criminalized by the Congress. All you must remember is that George W. Bush is good, and he protects you from people that will kill you and your whole family. Now, once a Democrat occupies the White House I'm sure we'll hear about what an affront to our nation's political heritage these Bush-powers are, but by then it may be too late.
The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
Here's a Kieth Olbermann bit about which parts of the Bill of Rights we're left with after this Administration. It's from many months ago. Watch it.
Public Support for Partisanship
Serving as a perfect followup to the Republican Whiner post below, we have these public support numbers for the
Incidentally, I can't understand how Pay-Go polls so poorly down there at the bottom. I guess it must be a hard issue to communicate.
(h/t Kos)
Given the support, you'll forgive us if we take a little time to do the people's business, and then the Republicans can go back to working for the top 1% and the hardcore Christians.*Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to attempt to lower the price of prescription drugs for some senior citizens: 87/12/1
*Raising the minimum wage: 85/14/1
*Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84/15/1
*Creating an independent panel to oversee ethics in Congress: 79/19/2
*Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 77/20/3
*Reducing the amount of influence lobbyists have in congressional decisions: 75/21/4
*Implementing all of the anti-terrorism recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission: 64/26/10
*Maintaining the current Social Security system to prevent the creation of private investment accounts: 63/32/6
*Funding embryonic stem cell research: 62/32/6
*Reducing some federal tax breaks for oil companies: 49/49/2
*Changing the rules to allow Congress to create new spending programs only if taxes are raised or spending on other programs is cut: 41/54/5
Incidentally, I can't understand how Pay-Go polls so poorly down there at the bottom. I guess it must be a hard issue to communicate.
(h/t Kos)
Republicans and Their Own Medicine
Give me a break! What a bunch of whiners!
It's a ridiculous comedy, but also more than a little sad. It's simply pathetic how quickly and completely the Republicans have flipped into "victimized minority" mode - when the Congress hasn't even started yet!
As the new Democratic Congress prepared to be sworn in today and elect Nancy Pelosi of California the first female speaker of the House of Representatives, partisan gamesmanship seasoned with hypocrisy threatened to override pledges of a new era of bipartisan cooperation.Yes, yes, we know that you've had to 12 years to treat us however you like with barely a mention of the abuse in the press, but now that the Democrats are in charge, all of a sudden it's a media issue. And excuse me if I wasn't aware that Pelosi promised the very first item on the agenda would be giving the Republicans treatment they didn't do anything to deserve. They complain about "breaking a promise," but if we had given them robust minority rights from the beginning, we'd end up breaking the rest of the promises we made because the Republicans would block the legislation!House Democrats said Wednesday they would break one of their major promises: granting Republicans the kind of full participation in the legislative process that they were denied while Republicans held power the past 12 years.
(snip)
Republicans held a news conference to complain.
It's a ridiculous comedy, but also more than a little sad. It's simply pathetic how quickly and completely the Republicans have flipped into "victimized minority" mode - when the Congress hasn't even started yet!
2007-01-03
Pat Robertson, Crazy Person
Thank god we've got God to warn us about terrorist attacks, huh?
Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass killing" late in 2007."I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network.
"The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."
Robertson said God told him about the impending tragedy during a recent prayer retreat.
God also said, he claims, that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.
Don't you wish the Lord could be a little more specific? There was none of this pussy-footing around with Noah - no, "Listen up Noah, you might want to prepare to get wet sometime in the next few years" warnings. It's like God has gotten a lazy in the intervening millennia.
Edwards on the McCain Doctrine
Edwards (video) begins the process of hanging the loss of the Iraq War and the deaths of hundreds or thousands more of our men and women on the neck of John McCain by calling Bush's Escalation the McCain Doctrine. Well done, John Edwards. I'll remember this one.
Olbermann on Sacrifice
Keith Olbermann (video) on Bush's New Way Forward in Iraq: Sacrifice. This is one of his most powerful to date.
Maliki Wants Out!
"Our man in Iraq," "the right man for the job" - "a man willing to make the hard decisions" - would really prefer to quit, thank you.
Is it surprising that Prime Minister Maliki wants out? Of course not. He lives in Iraq, for god's sake! But it is an earthshaking surprise that he would come out and say so to the international press. Perhaps he's playing expectations, so that there wont be any surprises when the American forces confront Al-Sadr and Maliki's government crumbles.
Nuri al-Maliki has said he wants to step down as prime minister of Iraq, as one of his advisers revealed that a man accused of recording Saddam Hussein's execution on his mobile phone has been arrested.I wonder if Maliki thinks it's "hard work" being Prime Minister. I expect his desire to bug-out has something to do with the intractable sectarian tensions coupled with the constant reminder that, should America leave, the heads of government might not live very long.In a candid interview with an American newspaper, Mr Maliki said it was the most difficult decision he has made since he agreeing to become prime minister seven years ago.
"I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again," he told the Wall Street Journal.
If offered a second term, he would not take it, and wishes to end his first term prematurely: "I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term," he said, adding: "I would like to serve my people from outside the circle of senior officials, maybe through the parliament, or through working directly with the people."
Is it surprising that Prime Minister Maliki wants out? Of course not. He lives in Iraq, for god's sake! But it is an earthshaking surprise that he would come out and say so to the international press. Perhaps he's playing expectations, so that there wont be any surprises when the American forces confront Al-Sadr and Maliki's government crumbles.
2007-01-02
Maybe Execuion Isn't the Word...
Maybe Hussein's execution should be called a lynching. Apparently, the Sadr Brigades were represented, as chants of "Moqtada! Moqtada!" filled the room for some of The Butcher's last seconds. He died as a Muslim should, with the Shahadah on his lips, while Moqtada's avatar mocked him. If someone in Maliki's government leaked this video, they did themselves no favors.
Is there nothing we cannot screw up? We lynch the former President of Iraq, on the Eid, with our prime rival usurping a prominent role. Wow. Just, wow. If you had predicted anything in the ballpark of that horrible, you'd be condemned as hysterical. Once again, the Bush Administration provides a real-life story you couldn't sell to a movie audience.
Today Sean Hannity was saying that there is nothing that the Administration can do that "The Liberals" will agree with and appreciate, and that's why the "caterwauling" about the execution is taking place - because of their insatiable Bush Hatred. My suggestion, Mr. Hannity, that would allow me to be proud of my government for once, is complicated. I'll itemize it so you can keep it straight:
Additional Reading: You really should read Riverbend's piece at Baghdad Burning. If you haven't heard of it, it's a blog run by an Iraqi woman, an ex-programmer, from within Baghdad. She went through the war, and was a favorite of the war-proponents in the lead up to the war. It's an interesting perspective.
Is there nothing we cannot screw up? We lynch the former President of Iraq, on the Eid, with our prime rival usurping a prominent role. Wow. Just, wow. If you had predicted anything in the ballpark of that horrible, you'd be condemned as hysterical. Once again, the Bush Administration provides a real-life story you couldn't sell to a movie audience.
Today Sean Hannity was saying that there is nothing that the Administration can do that "The Liberals" will agree with and appreciate, and that's why the "caterwauling" about the execution is taking place - because of their insatiable Bush Hatred. My suggestion, Mr. Hannity, that would allow me to be proud of my government for once, is complicated. I'll itemize it so you can keep it straight:
1) Wait five days. (so both the Sunni and Shiite version of Eid al-Adha have fully passed - it's three days long)Burdensome, I know.
Additional Reading: You really should read Riverbend's piece at Baghdad Burning. If you haven't heard of it, it's a blog run by an Iraqi woman, an ex-programmer, from within Baghdad. She went through the war, and was a favorite of the war-proponents in the lead up to the war. It's an interesting perspective.
2007-01-01
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)