I leave the country for a week, and stuff goes all wonky. Abizaid quit? Casey quit? Wow.
Some of the implications of this development are clear, I think. These two men, who had for so long advocated the President's Stay the Course strategy wherein more troops are a hindrance, needed to be disposed of before a troop surge could be implemented. The question is whether they resigned over the conflict, meaning they legitimately believed the current levels are correct, or whether they were retired in order for Gates to bring in his own team - people without the baggage of years of support for the current levels.
In other words, it looks more and more certain that Bush really will increase the troop strength. McCain can't be happy about that.
2006-12-13
Delay Blames Iraq on the Dems
As far as I know, Tom Delay is the first to float the "Democrats are To Blame for Losing Iraq" blame-shift. Start ringing the band-wagon bell!
While watching the video, my reaction was, "Oh yeah, that's a good one. Shadowy liberal forces are always more powerful than poor ol' Tom Delay and his conservative buddies, even when they completely control all branches of the federal government." Give me a break. "If only the liberals had clapped louder at our failures, we would have won."
While watching the video, my reaction was, "Oh yeah, that's a good one. Shadowy liberal forces are always more powerful than poor ol' Tom Delay and his conservative buddies, even when they completely control all branches of the federal government." Give me a break. "If only the liberals had clapped louder at our failures, we would have won."
Going Big
The President's favored strategy - the Pentagon's Go Big Strategy - where we add 30,000+ troops to Iraq, may include a provision for an exit strategy. I am confident it will, since they agree on the reality of the Go Long Plan, which acknowledges the fact that in the long term, continued deployment at this level drains the Armed Services prohibitively.
There's only one reason to surge troops into Baghdad, and it gets repeated again and again on the cable news shows: to provide enough security and stability so that Maliki can "go after the Shiite Militias." How would Maliki "go after" these militias, if the militias themselves represent the lion's share of his military power? Obviously, he cannot, so what can "going after the militias" mean? Well, with the militias and army out, that leaves the task to the American military, who will surge into "targeted neighborhoods." One of these neighborhoods is certainly Sadr City, where we would hope to rescue our captive soldier, amongst other things.
While rescuing our soldier would be worthy of celebration, the consequences could be significant. We have yet to encounter a Shiite insurgency in the country, with direct attacks on our forces coming mainly from the Sunni minority. By attacking the Shiites, we may provoke them into open hostility.
Sadr City is in the northeast part of Baghdad, and is home to over a million Shiites. The graphic below illustrates one of the problems:
The image above shows Sadr City in the upper right, and the Green Zone outlined in white across the river. You can't see the measuring tool, but it's only a little more than 3km away - mortar range. Given that they are they guys that could be allied with Iran, I wonder how many mortars they can put in the air at once, raining down on our "secure facilities" in the Green Zone.
Also, the supply lines our 140,000 men and women depend on run, poorly defended, through the midst of the Shiite south. With a Shiite backlash, we could have an unprecedented level of danger for our troops. The situation could make Operation Frequent Wind from Saigon look like a leisurely stroll.
This demonstrates the crucial thing to remember when devising a "plan" for Iraq: the choice we have is not between the status quo and withdrawal. Things could always get worse. It's not a situation where goofing around, trying different half-baked strategies is acceptable, since by doing so you are assuring the deaths of our troops. It's a volatile situation, and if we stand no chance of containing it or policing it, we should get out of the way, as horrible as that sounds. We all would have much rather have seen the Utopian fantasy-land outcome the neoconservatives sold as inevitable. But continuing to have our troops die for failure is the height of immorality.
There's only one reason to surge troops into Baghdad, and it gets repeated again and again on the cable news shows: to provide enough security and stability so that Maliki can "go after the Shiite Militias." How would Maliki "go after" these militias, if the militias themselves represent the lion's share of his military power? Obviously, he cannot, so what can "going after the militias" mean? Well, with the militias and army out, that leaves the task to the American military, who will surge into "targeted neighborhoods." One of these neighborhoods is certainly Sadr City, where we would hope to rescue our captive soldier, amongst other things.
While rescuing our soldier would be worthy of celebration, the consequences could be significant. We have yet to encounter a Shiite insurgency in the country, with direct attacks on our forces coming mainly from the Sunni minority. By attacking the Shiites, we may provoke them into open hostility.
Sadr City is in the northeast part of Baghdad, and is home to over a million Shiites. The graphic below illustrates one of the problems:
The image above shows Sadr City in the upper right, and the Green Zone outlined in white across the river. You can't see the measuring tool, but it's only a little more than 3km away - mortar range. Given that they are they guys that could be allied with Iran, I wonder how many mortars they can put in the air at once, raining down on our "secure facilities" in the Green Zone.Also, the supply lines our 140,000 men and women depend on run, poorly defended, through the midst of the Shiite south. With a Shiite backlash, we could have an unprecedented level of danger for our troops. The situation could make Operation Frequent Wind from Saigon look like a leisurely stroll.
This demonstrates the crucial thing to remember when devising a "plan" for Iraq: the choice we have is not between the status quo and withdrawal. Things could always get worse. It's not a situation where goofing around, trying different half-baked strategies is acceptable, since by doing so you are assuring the deaths of our troops. It's a volatile situation, and if we stand no chance of containing it or policing it, we should get out of the way, as horrible as that sounds. We all would have much rather have seen the Utopian fantasy-land outcome the neoconservatives sold as inevitable. But continuing to have our troops die for failure is the height of immorality.
Via Juan Cole
Freedom is on the March, with the Israeli's and Saudi's getting closer:
Meanwhile, a de facto Israeli-Saudi alliance appears to be building against Iran and the Shiites. Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz is now saying that the 2002 Beirut peace plan put forward by then crown prince--now King--Abdullah of Saudi Arabia must be the basis for going forward with an Arab-Israeli peace process. Abdullah got the Arab League to offer Israel full recognition and political and economic relations if only they'd go back to the 1967 borders and recognize a Palestinian state.I have heard Israeli ministers talking of this plan on the news in the last few weeks. Essentially, the Israeli's give back 90% of the land they occupied, and trade 1-for-1 for the remaining 10%. Once they remove the Palestinian's grievances, the Israeli's lives will get easier. They'll still have to be forever vigilant and independent through strength, but by ceasing the very real oppression of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, they'll sap some of the power out of their opposition.
At the time, then prime minister Ariel Sharon dismissed Abdullah's plan rather rudely. But now Israel has been bloodied by a Lebanon war that it lost on points to Hizbullah despite its clear military superiority. Bashar al-Asad of Syria pointed out that every generation of Arabs hates the Israelis more than its predecessors. Iran is emerging as a new hegemon in the eastern stretches of the Middle East.
Pentagon Calls for Doubling Down, McCain Steps in It
Since Bush always listens to his "commanders on the ground," and since failure or giving up are not options for the President, it looks like he'll take the Pentagon's recommendation to "double down" in Iraq:
No, the real surprise about going after Sadr is that if we could, somehow, neutralize him, we would, in fact, be destroying the current Iraqi Government, since Prime Minister Maliki relies on the Sadrists for retaining his position. Destroying the Sadrists would be indistinguishable from a vote of no confidence in the government. Last I checked, Bush believed that "Maliki's the guy for the job," despite the leaked internal memos questioning the PM's competence. Do we really have the gall to topple the elected government, when we spent so many years affirming support for the government and the democratic process? You can say this much - that would certainly amount to a "New Approach."
Politically, there's another loser in this decision. John McCain. He has stated that keeping troops in harm's way without a plan for victory is immoral, which I admire him for. And yet he has been calling for the measly increase of 20,000 more troops to be deployed into Iraq. To think that going from 140,000 to 160,000 troops will make the decisive difference when every expert says the needed number is closer to 500,000 is wishful thinking of the worst sort, and makes the participants guilty of precisely the immorality McCain says he deplores.
The one thing that was smart about McCain's plan was the political calculations. Figuring that the crushing blow the Republicans were headed towards in the midterm elections, coupled with the Baker Report, would force the President's hand on a pullout from Iraq, McCain called for the opposite. That way, when the inevitable defeat of retreat finally happened, John McCain could stand alone as the candidate that was always for doing what it took to win in Iraq. They'd say that "he's no surrender monkey;" that "if he had been in charge, since he was calling for more troops all along, we would have done it right and had a stunning victory in Iraq. With Victory in Iraq, America's world image would shine like a newly gilded City on a Hill, basking in light so beautiful it borders on the blasphemous. " He would have been "the optimist, the Reagan Conservative, the inheritor of Bush's "steadfastness" but tempered by the fact he's got an inquisitive and engaged brain in his head." In the blame game on Iraq, which will assuredly play a large part in the upcoming Presidential Elections, McCain would have a stunning advantage over the Administration cheerleaders or the "blame American first" crowd.
Unfortunately for him, it looks like Bush is actually going to implement his plan. Now, rather than being able to say, "I had a plan to WIN in Iraq, but instead my opponent ensured America's DEFEAT," he'll be saddled with the continued failure, continued death, continued drain on our national treasury and psyche. The continued deaths are on his hands, since he is the advocate of the policy. Rather than riding high on a wave of military patriotism, he'll come skulking in with the weight of defeat on his shoulders. By supporting this policy, he will be immorally pouring American lives into an effort that cannot succeed.
Too Bad. I kinda liked McCain.
So the reason for the troops is to create stability and engage Sadr, the vile cleric responsible for the deaths of many of our men, and probably even responsible for the kidnapping of the soldier still missing - the soldier Prime Minister Maliki ordered us to stop looking for. In fact, at one point in time there was an arrest warrant for murder issued for Muqtada. Despite the righteousness of the effort, going after Sadr will be a big undertaking, since the Mahdi Army is one of the biggest militias in the country. Fighting them into submission may be intensely difficult, given the warren of Sadr City. But since when have we been afraid of doing what is hard? Just look at Fallujah and Ramadi. We could level Sadr City too - problem solved, and with few American deaths, right? But barring airstrikes and rubblization in a heavily populated area, we might not be able to find Muqtada Al-Sadr to bring him to justice, and that would be rather embarrassing. (And we all know that total war is not how you win the War on Terror)As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to Bush at the Pentagon today. Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory.
The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). But the Pentagon proposals add several features, including the confrontation with Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military.
No, the real surprise about going after Sadr is that if we could, somehow, neutralize him, we would, in fact, be destroying the current Iraqi Government, since Prime Minister Maliki relies on the Sadrists for retaining his position. Destroying the Sadrists would be indistinguishable from a vote of no confidence in the government. Last I checked, Bush believed that "Maliki's the guy for the job," despite the leaked internal memos questioning the PM's competence. Do we really have the gall to topple the elected government, when we spent so many years affirming support for the government and the democratic process? You can say this much - that would certainly amount to a "New Approach."
Politically, there's another loser in this decision. John McCain. He has stated that keeping troops in harm's way without a plan for victory is immoral, which I admire him for. And yet he has been calling for the measly increase of 20,000 more troops to be deployed into Iraq. To think that going from 140,000 to 160,000 troops will make the decisive difference when every expert says the needed number is closer to 500,000 is wishful thinking of the worst sort, and makes the participants guilty of precisely the immorality McCain says he deplores.
The one thing that was smart about McCain's plan was the political calculations. Figuring that the crushing blow the Republicans were headed towards in the midterm elections, coupled with the Baker Report, would force the President's hand on a pullout from Iraq, McCain called for the opposite. That way, when the inevitable defeat of retreat finally happened, John McCain could stand alone as the candidate that was always for doing what it took to win in Iraq. They'd say that "he's no surrender monkey;" that "if he had been in charge, since he was calling for more troops all along, we would have done it right and had a stunning victory in Iraq. With Victory in Iraq, America's world image would shine like a newly gilded City on a Hill, basking in light so beautiful it borders on the blasphemous. " He would have been "the optimist, the Reagan Conservative, the inheritor of Bush's "steadfastness" but tempered by the fact he's got an inquisitive and engaged brain in his head." In the blame game on Iraq, which will assuredly play a large part in the upcoming Presidential Elections, McCain would have a stunning advantage over the Administration cheerleaders or the "blame American first" crowd.
Unfortunately for him, it looks like Bush is actually going to implement his plan. Now, rather than being able to say, "I had a plan to WIN in Iraq, but instead my opponent ensured America's DEFEAT," he'll be saddled with the continued failure, continued death, continued drain on our national treasury and psyche. The continued deaths are on his hands, since he is the advocate of the policy. Rather than riding high on a wave of military patriotism, he'll come skulking in with the weight of defeat on his shoulders. By supporting this policy, he will be immorally pouring American lives into an effort that cannot succeed.
Too Bad. I kinda liked McCain.
2006-12-12
Results
The Democrats are removing all earmarks from the remaining spending bills. Hello Democrats, good by pork!
Democrats taking power in January have settled on a plan to clean up $463 billion worth of GOP budget leftovers, but they're not happy about it - and neither is the White House.The plan by the incoming chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees would kill thousands of hometown projects, called "earmarks," that lawmakers add to spending bills. Staying within President Bush's thrifty budgets for domestic agencies like the Agriculture and Education departments is part of their proposal.
"There will be no congressional earmarks," Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday in a statement announcing their plans, which were endorsed by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
2006-12-08
The GOP Twiddled Thumbs
Rep. Kingston is the gift that just keeps on giving! (This post complete with video)
He's just been a barrel of laughs, lately.Gibson: Don't you think that maybe part of the reason the Republicans were fired is the public heard about this?
Kingston: I think its because we didn't perform. When we were up here we were naming bridges and post offices. We were not having quality time again…—We drifted, we got off our agenda. We came up here and some weeks we just twiddled our thumbs and that's what killed us…
2006-12-06
Recent Flowing Water on Mars!
Go NASA! Yet more amazing and encouraging science from Mars:
That is evidence of recently flowing water, ladies and gentlemen! Hello aquifers!
They don't even mean "recently flowing" in the geological timescale sense:
That outflow happened in the last five years! There's water waiting for us.
That is evidence of recently flowing water, ladies and gentlemen! Hello aquifers!They don't even mean "recently flowing" in the geological timescale sense:
That outflow happened in the last five years! There's water waiting for us.
Bush Flips on North Korea
From today's Times:
Of course, this does mean that we're back to the policy Clinton established and Bush dropped - paying off the North Koreans to abandon their program. Those of us in the real world always knew this particular problem would be solved with a bribe, since the neoconservatives' other always-ready option - blowing stuff up - isn't exactly operative on China's doorstep. Of course, we did gain something in exchange for our President's Axis-of-Evil Policy - a nuclear armed North Korea! Good trade.
via Josh Marshall.
The United States has offered a detailed package of economic and energy assistance in exchange for North Korea’s giving up nuclear weapons and technology, American officials said Tuesday.This is rank, Clintonian appeasement! I thought my President was steadfast in his steely resolve to never be wrong about anything? Go figure.
Of course, this does mean that we're back to the policy Clinton established and Bush dropped - paying off the North Koreans to abandon their program. Those of us in the real world always knew this particular problem would be solved with a bribe, since the neoconservatives' other always-ready option - blowing stuff up - isn't exactly operative on China's doorstep. Of course, we did gain something in exchange for our President's Axis-of-Evil Policy - a nuclear armed North Korea! Good trade.
via Josh Marshall.
Acknowledging Mistakes
The Independent puts the smack!
I love the two blank spots for Bush and Blair.
I love the two blank spots for Bush and Blair.
The Horrors of Work
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who will become House majority leader and is writing the schedule for the next Congress, said members should expect longer hours than the brief week they have grown accustomed to [...]Cry me a river, Republicans. Five days of work a week vs two! Can you get any more ridiculous? Can you get any more out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans?"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
This reminds me of another post-election story about Republicans crying like little babies.
"There is a lot of battle fatigue among members, probably on both sides of the aisle," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), usually a reliable conservative firebrand. "Contrary to popular belief, members of Congress are human beings. They have a certain shelf life and a certain amount of energy to be drawn on. We're tired."It's "hard work" doing your job two days a week.
2006-12-02
ISG = Stay the Coruse
After looking at the contents of the Iraq Study Group, I've changed my estimation of its recommendation. It still does political damage to the Bush Administration's Stay the Course strategy, since it has significantly moved the debate with it's sober factual account of the conditions within Iraq and Baghdad, specifically. The conventional wisdom now has significant momentum towards declaring Iraq a loss - chaotic beyond redemption. The ISG describes the conditions as "Dire and Deteriorating," which can only mean things are getting worse. That puts the happy-talk about "Winning in Iraq" to bed, which is a significant victory for our side of the argument.
Furthermore, since the bipartisan group appeared to recommend two things the Administration refuses to consider - a pullout and negotiations with Syria and Iran - it looks like the Bush Administration is filing this report in the circular filing cabinet. For the record, Bush's responses to these two proposals of the are:
But, despite the fact that the public perception of the report damages the Administration politically, when you read the actual report it actually supports the President's current plan - Stay the Course, or "We'll Stand Down as They Stand Up." The troop withdrawals contained within the report are tied to "conditions on the ground," which is exactly what Bush has been saying for years. Amazing, isn't it, that what is essentially a complete vindication can be played as such a resounding rebuke?
So what really happened here? I've got my theory: the panel members were sober people, with no ego-skin in the game, allowing them to attempt a dispassionate appraisal to arrive at the optimum policy. This allowed them to see the reality - that the War in Iraq has entered a new phase of civil war which we have no power to shape. Since we don't posses the troops to significantly surge numbers for a sustained period, we cannot implement a policy that has a hope of success, so we must withdraw. However, the participants of the panel were still political men and women, so tying the withdrawals to conditions on the ground was a precondition placed by one of the Republican members in the hopes of blunting the political impact of the report. Unfortunately for them, that is one too many steps of subtlety for the conventional wisdom narrative to follow. A political defeat is what has been perceived by the public regardless of the literal verbage and nuance of the report. This turned out to be an interesting mini lesson in the conventional wisdom narrative that is all our media can coherently present.
Furthermore, since the bipartisan group appeared to recommend two things the Administration refuses to consider - a pullout and negotiations with Syria and Iran - it looks like the Bush Administration is filing this report in the circular filing cabinet. For the record, Bush's responses to these two proposals of the are:
"Iran knows how to get to the table with us, and that is to do that which they said they would do, which is verifiably suspend their [uranium] enrichment programs."Furthermore, when Iraq is finally and totally lost, the fact that Bush ignored this bipartisan report can be used as ammunition against him in the inevitable argument over who is to blame.
(snip)
"I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq," he told reporters. But "this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all."
But, despite the fact that the public perception of the report damages the Administration politically, when you read the actual report it actually supports the President's current plan - Stay the Course, or "We'll Stand Down as They Stand Up." The troop withdrawals contained within the report are tied to "conditions on the ground," which is exactly what Bush has been saying for years. Amazing, isn't it, that what is essentially a complete vindication can be played as such a resounding rebuke?
So what really happened here? I've got my theory: the panel members were sober people, with no ego-skin in the game, allowing them to attempt a dispassionate appraisal to arrive at the optimum policy. This allowed them to see the reality - that the War in Iraq has entered a new phase of civil war which we have no power to shape. Since we don't posses the troops to significantly surge numbers for a sustained period, we cannot implement a policy that has a hope of success, so we must withdraw. However, the participants of the panel were still political men and women, so tying the withdrawals to conditions on the ground was a precondition placed by one of the Republican members in the hopes of blunting the political impact of the report. Unfortunately for them, that is one too many steps of subtlety for the conventional wisdom narrative to follow. A political defeat is what has been perceived by the public regardless of the literal verbage and nuance of the report. This turned out to be an interesting mini lesson in the conventional wisdom narrative that is all our media can coherently present.
2006-11-30
Baker Commission Puts Bush At DefCon 2
Remember how the White House handled Harriet Myers and Donald Rumsfeld? In both cases, the President psychologically hunkered down, retreating into the authority of his position and the moral certitude that he has been lauded for so many times. This retreat marked the emergence of the "President as Decider" approach to governing. President Bush had made the decision, and he'd not consider changing his mind. This "steadfastness" is the President's normal, stubborn state. When the tide of the argument began to swing decisively against him, however, with even conservatives bashing Harriet Miers and a parade of generals calling for Rumsfeld resignation, Bush hit Defcon 2 - a heightened state of stubborn-readiness. Ready to respond. Primed. This is what brought about the "Decider Declaration," and the, at times, shrill defenses of these two figures that continued directly up until they withdrew/resigned.
The Baker Commission constitutes that shift in the Iraq War argument's dynamic. The all-hailed commission - the one chaired by the very "Republican Fixer" that assured Bush's election in 2000 - came out for gradual withdrawal, with no timetables, and a sober factual accounting of the dire situation currently. It's an almost surprising rebuke of Bush's Stay the Course strategy, and will continue to be so long as Bush refuses to accept dramatic course correction.
If something can convince Bush that he has no chance to win this way, and that therefore the lives spent are spent in vain, he might man up. He might believe in the effort so fiercely that actions behind his rhetoric about this being the defining battle of our time. But the Congress aint passing no draft. I just don't see it. As the neocons say, "we might need to mobilize a sector of our economy to support this effort. " That's the only way to "win," and it isn't happening.
Instead, poor President Bush will continue our involvement in the Iraq Civil War, because the Iraq War is his entire legacy. Weep for the American men and women that will die because he cannot admit what a painful mistake he has made.
The Baker Commission constitutes that shift in the Iraq War argument's dynamic. The all-hailed commission - the one chaired by the very "Republican Fixer" that assured Bush's election in 2000 - came out for gradual withdrawal, with no timetables, and a sober factual accounting of the dire situation currently. It's an almost surprising rebuke of Bush's Stay the Course strategy, and will continue to be so long as Bush refuses to accept dramatic course correction.
If something can convince Bush that he has no chance to win this way, and that therefore the lives spent are spent in vain, he might man up. He might believe in the effort so fiercely that actions behind his rhetoric about this being the defining battle of our time. But the Congress aint passing no draft. I just don't see it. As the neocons say, "we might need to mobilize a sector of our economy to support this effort. " That's the only way to "win," and it isn't happening.
Instead, poor President Bush will continue our involvement in the Iraq Civil War, because the Iraq War is his entire legacy. Weep for the American men and women that will die because he cannot admit what a painful mistake he has made.
Whoa Nelly!
I don't often resort to Nellyisms, but the junk Maliki just threw up in our face called for it.
A scheduled dinner meeting between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was canceled Wednesday, hours after 36 Iraqi politicians loyal to militant Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew from their government posts and denounced Bush as "the world's biggest evil."The cancellation "underscores how volatile Iraq has become" because he cancelled the meeting with us. America, the guys he owes his continued governance to, not to mention his continued life. To snub us so publicly, at the last minute, the threat posed by the boycotting Sadrmen must have been grave indeed - a threat large enough that he didn't think he could weather its stresses.
The White House denied that the delay was a snub by the Iraqi leader and insisted that "robust" talks would continue as planned on Thursday, despite the political turmoil in Baghdad and the leak of an administration memo detailing U.S. concerns about Maliki's ability to control sectarian violence.
The cancellation was clearly a surprise, however, and coupled with the withdrawal of the Sadrists who are a key part of Maliki's political base, it underscored how volatile Iraq has become as violence has reached record levels.
In other words, very bad news. Welcome to the parade.
Friedman Calls for ReInvasion and +150k Troops
Thomas Friedman, being honest:
The ultimate question for Friedman is, Where do these 150,000 troops come from, given that we would need several hundred-thousand more troops in the army to sustain that deployment oversees? We can't maintain our current deployment indefinitely with current recruitment levels, so these 400,000 new personnel will need to be acquired, not recruited, right Tom? Is there the political will to do that? Absolutely not. Game over.
Here's a video of Friedman advocating his ReInvasion and ReOccupation.
Given this, we need to face our real choices in Iraq, which are: 10 months or 10 years. Either we just get out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal over 10 months, and try to stabilize it some other way, or we accept the fact that the only way it will not be a failed state is if we start over and rebuild it from the ground up, which would take 10 years. This would require reinvading Iraq, with at least 150,000 more troops, crushing the Sunni and Shiite militias, controlling borders, and building Iraq's institutions and political culture from scratch.At least he's honest, both about what level of commitment victory would take, and about the immorality of continuing to pour lives into the current situation. This proposed strategy leads to the same question I've been asking since McCain started getting attention with his "I've always called for more troops" line of attack. Granted, more troops is the only way to win in Iraq, but it will take a lot more than the 20,000 McCain irresponsibly calls for. 20,000 wont be nearly enough to dramatically affect the dynamic. And, even if we do put a couple hundred thousand more troops into Iraq, we'd need to stay as a force for years. The reconstruction we should have done before will then be possible, and maybe that's enough to foster a stable society.
(snip)
If we're not ready to do what is necessary to crush the dark forces in Iraq and properly rebuild it, then we need to leave -- because to just keep stumbling along as we have been makes no sense.
The ultimate question for Friedman is, Where do these 150,000 troops come from, given that we would need several hundred-thousand more troops in the army to sustain that deployment oversees? We can't maintain our current deployment indefinitely with current recruitment levels, so these 400,000 new personnel will need to be acquired, not recruited, right Tom? Is there the political will to do that? Absolutely not. Game over.
Here's a video of Friedman advocating his ReInvasion and ReOccupation.
2006-11-29
Bush-Maliki Meeting Postponed.
Interesting:
Bush and al-Maliki are expected to discuss political and security strategies for Iraq during talks Thursday. The two had been expected to meet Wednesday evening, but the State Department said talks would begin Thursday.Strange, huh? Could it be the pressure Sadr is exerting?
Sadr Boycotts Government
So, it turns out we're more important to Maliki than his coalition. I don't suppose that should come as a surprise:
Iraq's prime minister saw his support erode on two fronts Wednesday as a White House memo questioned his leadership and a powerful political bloc suspended participation in Iraq's government.The classified memo by President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley questions whether Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki can end the bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, and especially whether he can rein in the Mehdi Army militia loyal to anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Hours after details of the Hadley memo first appeared in Wednesday's New York Times, Cabinet ministers and members of the Iraqi parliament loyal to al-Sadr underscored al-Maliki's shaky position, saying they would stop participating in his government.
The al-Sadr supporters had said earlier they would take such action if al-Maliki went ahead with a meeting with Bush on Thursday in Jordan.
There are about 30 lawmakers loyal to al-Sadr in the 275-member parliament, and six Cabinet ministers from his bloc.
An interesting development. There's been lots of talk of replacing Maliki... does this leaked memo play into a plan along those lines?
2006-11-28
Fein on Forcing Oversight on the Unitary Executive
Via FireDogLake, we have a Bruce Fein editorial on a method for forcing the notoriously tight White House to give up some information to Congressional oversight. He proposes:
A Democrat-controlled 110th Congress must enact new legislation to challenge executive privilege if it hopes to exercise meaningful oversight of the White House. The legislation should establish House and Senate legislative-executive committees featuring legislative majorities to arbitrate disputes over congressional access to national security information.Ummmm, Bruce? I love you, man, but how is that going to work? Perhaps I'm ignorant of some ability of the Congress to enact this type of legislation without the signature of the President. Barring that, though, the idea of Bush signing a law designed to allow the Congress to investigate him is what some might call naive. It should go without saying that we wouldn't have the votes to override. So what's the esteemed Deputy AG talking about?
Hastings Out. Duh.
CQ Via Talking Points MuckRaker:
House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi was to meet with Rep. Alcee L. Hastings late Tuesday to close the door on his bid to become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a congressional aide said.But Pelosi, D-Calif., has not yet decided who will get the job, according to the aide. . . .
Pelosi met with Harman two weeks ago to discuss the House Intelligence Committee chair job. There is little to suggest Pelosi will reverse her intention to replace Harman atop the panel.
Duh.
Go Rush Holt!2006-11-27
Harman vs Not-Harman
As usual, Glenn does my homework for me. Thank god I'm patient! After thorough documentation, he says:
There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee, so Harman is not being "demoted" by being "denied" this seat. Hastings is not the "alternative," since Pelosi can choose anyone she wants and, as far as I know, has never said that the "alternative" to Harman is Hastings. The media has just invented this dichotomy in order to foster the drama of the Serious/Substantive v. Frivolous/Bitchy choice they have decreed is what Pelosi must navigate.It's great. Read it all.
(snip)
There is nothing "credible" about Harman. Yes, she is smart and knowledgeable, but she has been wrong about everything that matters, particularly in the intelligence area. But she was wrong in exactly the same way that the Beltway geniuses and The New Republic and David Broder and Fred Hiatt were wrong. For that reason, they don't want her to be repudiated and rejected because that would constitute a repudiation and rejection of them. So they build up and glorify the "credible," responsible Harman because she represents them, and they hate Pelosi in advance for rejecting Harman for being wrong about everything because they feel rejected by that choice.
As a result, Pelosi and her opposition to Harman have to be belittled and removed from the substantive arena. Harman supported the most disastrous strategic decision in our nation's history and repeatedly defended the administration's worst excesses. That ought to be disqualifying on its face. But the Beltway media are guilty of the same crimes, so they want to pretend that Harman -- just like Steny Hoyer -- did nothing wrong and the only reason not to anoint her to her Rightful Place is because of petty, womanly personality disputes that have no place in the public arena.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)