Re-education

China has begun a program of "patriotic re-education" of Tibetans, where the benefits of Chinese rule are stressed, and the Dalai Lama is reviled. Thank goodness we don't resort to such obvious propaganda tactics here.

No siree ... nothing like that here. Nope. Instead, we engage in sophisticated data manipulation to stampede the country into an unnecessary and unjustified conflict. Should some few prove resistant to such tactics, we simply shout them down as "unpatriotic" or "anti-American".

When three, four, five years later those dissenters turn out to have have been correct in nearly every particular, and the shouters equally wrong, anyone who has the temerity to point out such matters is "unpatriotic", or "anti-American". Besides, to leave with the job undone, even though a job which should never have been started in the first place, would "dishonor" those who died in the cause.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice taunted Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, for residing safely in Iran while directing Mahdi Army forces to fight against US and Iraqi army forces. From his front-line command post in the White House, President Bush had no comment.

VP of Torture

It came out this past week Vice President Vader was ultimately responsible for signing off on and even "micromanaging" the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against suspected terrorist agents during a series of meetings in 2002 and 2003 which included, among others, such noted figures as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and then CIA Director George Tenet.

What's remarkable is the sheer lack of newsworthiness about the revelation. It's been something everyone has "known" for years, it's just a question of the details being confirmed.

The torture inflicted involved more than dressing Condi up in kinky latex and whips, and even more than tying the terrorists to chairs, propping their eyes open with toothpicks and forcing them to watch around-the-clock reality television (which would either have forced confessions, true or not, or reduced the participant to the blithering state many of our fellow citizens sadly reside in). No, we're talking about all forms of physical abuse, up to and including sleep deprivation and water boarding.

For those who brush off the effects of water-boarding, or like to hide it behind euphemisms such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "simulated drowning", I encourage you to read this thread, written by someone who decided to find out for himself what the process was like last December. It's worth noting that, prior to conducting the experiment, the author favored the use of the technique. His thoughts after the experiment I leave for you to discover.

Don't just read the initial post ... there are a number of interesting questions and responses by the author throughout.

As has been noted, here and elsewhere, many, many times, these are techniques applied to individuals who have been found guilty of absolutely nothing. They have not been tried. They have not had a chance to confront their accusers in an open court. Many of them have been arrested under rather flimsy circumstances. A number which have been found to be innocent have been released.

This week a number of protests were organized around the world to highlight China's human rights' abuses, timed to coincide with the running of the Olympic torch prior to the Beijing Olympics this summer. Some of those protests were planned for San Francisco and the Golden Gate bridge ... something I am sure the Chinese government found quite hypocritical. Why should they be asked to adhere to standards we clearly refuse to hold ourselves to?

Eight years ago we were a beacon for the world, not perfect, but at least striving to be better, and encouraging other nations to join us in that search. Today, we are a bully who threatens and bullies smaller nations and takes away their lunch money if they don't mold their foreign policy to fit our self-interest.

I am not a pacifist ... there are just wars, and our presence in Afghanistan is, in my mind, fully justified. The leaders of that nation knowingly provided safe haven to a coterie of people who viciously attacked and killed our citizens. By doing so, it provided a legitimate cassus belli.

However, there are unjust wars as well, and Iraq unquestionably falls in that category (as will our future war with Iran, should McCain win election this fall ... but that's another issue). Our presence there, our continuing unjust occupation, and our continuing violation of basic privacy and civil liberties, both abroad and at home, have destroyed our nation's credibility for a generation, at least ... if we can ever regain it at all.

When trust is violated, it's rare to ever get it all back, no matter how contrite and sincere the subsequent remorse ... and this administration hasn't just violated trust, it's thrown it on the ground, ground it's heels on it, spat and shat upon it ...

Ultimately, it's not just the prisoners of Guantanamo, or those individuals who have suffered rendition, who have been wrongfully abused by this administration, it's all of us, the nation in it's entirety. When this leadership team came into the White House there was a great deal of talk and blather about the new "CEO" administration. I wish they had stuck with that ... at least then they might have limited their torture to our economy.

Liberal Dissonance

I clearly recall supporting our invasion of Afghanistan, but adamantly opposing invading Iraq. I felt at the time the case for WMDs hadn't been convincing, and certainly there didn't seem to be a clear link between Iraq and 9/11.

Then I read this paper discussing people's opinions and the 2006 elections, and I had to reconsider.

The paper's primary topic is how individual's views on the Iraq war affected the voting. It discusses the unprecedented polarization Bush's presidency has engendered (while his popularity among Dem's fell to single digits, and Independents to low double-digits, among republican's it remained around 80% ... which says everything one needs to know about whether he really is a uniter or a divider), and also discusses the forms of cognitive dissonance many conservatives suffer under (36% of FOX news viewers still believe the US discovered WMDs in Iraq) and folks like myself like to smugly mock, the really interesting part for me was the discussion of liberals reconstructing their recollections (this part begins on page 22).

Table 9 on page 24 sums everything up nicely. To summarize, surveys before the war found 46% of Democrats favored the Iraq war, 72% thought Iraq possessed WMDs, and 44% thought Saddam Hussein had been personally involved in 9/11. However, surveys taken last year asking people what they recalled of their views prior to the war found only 21% of Democrats remembered supporting the war, only 26% recalled thinking Iraq had WMDs, and a mere 14% recollect thinking Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

That, folks, is an example of cognitive dissonance. Clearly, a number of people have rearranged their memories based on what they think now, as opposed to what they actually felt at the time.

Of course, there is a difference between the dissonance liberals (and, to a lesser extent, independents) labor under, and that of conservatives - as the paper makes clear, the former group has been revising it's views as more information has come in (such as the fact Irag did not actually possess WMDs, and Saddam was not actually involved in 9/11), while the latter group has opted to retain its views and ignore contrary data.

I went and dug up some old correspondence of mine, which confirmed I did, in fact, oppose the Iraq war even prior to its beginning. At least on this topic, I am not revising my memories.

Compassionate Conservatism in action

This has already been posted about in a number of place, but apparently the US Army is attempting to recover some of the bonuses it paid to soldiers who were injured in combat seriously enough to not be able to fulfill their terms of enlistment.

As noted at the link, Dem Congressman Jason Altmire has already introduced legislation to prevent this practice, which should never have occurred in the first place. I'm sure by challenging the army on this, he will shortly beheld up as yet another Democrat who "doesn't support the troops".

After all, once they are severely wounded and can't hold a gun or take a bullet anymore they're no longer "troops" but civilians, so Conservatives don't feel the need to pretend to care about them anymore.

Surge, al-Sadr, speculation

The NY Times has an article today discussing the decreasing number of attacks in Iraq, which have reportedly fallen to levels not seen since Feb. 2006. The number of Iraqi deaths in October is expected to be the lowest monthly total since then as well. Meanwhile, US troops deaths in Iraq, which had been at record or near-record highs through the end of August, dropped to 38 last month, the lowest figure since Mar. 2006.

In discussing the various factors involved, the 11th paragraph begins: "Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric, has ordered his militiamen to stand down."

If one only read this article, one might think this was a recent development. As in, "things are going sooooooo well, even al-Sadr thought it was safe enough to stand down his militia."

One would be wrong. In fact, al-Sadr called for the militia stand down at the end of August.

Let's connect some dots. The surge began in January of this year. Throughout the year, as US troops levels increased there was no indication they were having any clear effect in decreasing violence. Each month, US casualties were higher than the corresponding month in 2006 (which was already a high-casualty year). As late as August, Iraqi civilian casualties were high, but September saw a significant drop, which apparently continued last month.

Through the summer there were comments about the lethality of explosively formed penetrators, supposedly provided by Iran ... which most certainly was not providing them to primarily Sunni groups, such as al-Qaeda in Iraq, but rather to Shi'ite organizations, such as, just to pick a random example, al-Sadr's militia brigades.

So which is the bigger factor, the surge or al-Sadr's proclamation? There will, of course, be a spate of articles, talking heads comments, blog posts, etc., which claim the former, but the numbers don't bear that out. The surge occurred over a period of months during which violence and casualties were extremely high. Al-Sadr opens his mouth, and immediately violence and casualties drop spectacularly.

Sometimes the timely words of a self-interested lunatic mean more than a few 10's of thousands of American soldiers. Unfortunately, he could open his mouth again and reverse the trend nearly as quickly.

It's supposed to be "safe FOR democracy"

"Where can anybody be safe from Bush's democracy?"

- Mohammed al-Samarrae, discussing the death of his pregnant cousin in a US air strike in Iraq.

Are we done yet?

The Washington Post has a story today about a debate within the army and the administration over declaring "victory" against al-Qaeda in Iraq. The consensus seems to be AQI has taken some heavy hits in recent months, severely damaging its capacity for terror operations, and some folks want a public declaration to the effect, while others, having seen similar "Mission Accomplished" and "Last Throes" statements turn out poorly in the past, are taking a more cautious view.

Of course, there is another reason to not declare victory as well, which the article mentions but I am going to discuss here anyway ...

It's unquestionably a good thing that AQI has been significantly reduced in effectiveness by our recent operations there. Hopefully the pressure on the organization really has cracked it, to the point of being irrecoverable. If so, however, it raises two points in my mind:


1. What, exactly, does it say about our occupation that "declaring victory" over a terrorist organization in Iraq which never existed prior to our occupation is seen as a sign of progress and optimism? I mean, AQI only ever came about in the first place because we decided to invade Iraq. No invasion, no terrorists.

It's like saying "this was an offshoot of our bad planning and poor decision-making, but we've mostly fixed the direct problem (although it's true a multitude of other, related problems still exist), so lets declare victory. Huzzah!"


2. As the article notes, one reason given for not declaring victory is if there are no terrorists left it opens up the question of why we still need troops there. I.e., if it's not the terrorists doing all the shooting and killing and bombing, aren't our troops just trying to referee a civil war?

Of course, it has been true for a considerable time the vast majority of violence perpetrated in Iraq has had nothing whatsoever to do with AQI or any other recognized terrorist organization, and has had everything to do with factional conflicts within Iraq. This can't be admitted, however, or what little public support still remains for keeping our troops over there would collapse even further.



It's all a pipe-dream. The chances our troops are going to exit Iraq within the next two years is roughly the same as our cars being pooped on by dive-bombing pigs. Endless rationalizations for the war follow the same life-cycle: creation, promotion, prove to be false, discard in favor of yet another rationalization ... and the cycle of death continues unabated.

Some interrelated data

The NYTimes has an article today describing what it has found concerning the now infamous Blackwater incident last week in Baghdad. The article goes out of its way to point out not all information is known, but the information which is known, largely from eyewitnesses, paints a pretty damning picture.

This is the latest of a number of incidents involving Blackwater, and has sparked a number of investigations, both in Iraq and the United States. One big issue has been the sheer number of mercenaries our government employs in Iraq. An idea can be gained by looking at how rapidly Blackwater's government contracts have escalated: from roughly $750K in 2001 to over $600 million last year.

That's a lot of soldiers, outside any formal chain of command, costing up to six times what a member of the US military does ... and at the same time lets the government get away with claiming we "only" have around 150K troops in Iraq, instead of the 300K plus actually there.

Meanwhile, as Liza points out in a comment here, things are looking up in Basra:

"BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Residents of Iraq's southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.

Political assassinations and sectarian violence continue, some city officials say, but on a much smaller scale than at any time since British troops moved into the city after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

...

"The situation these days is better. We were living in hell ... the area is calm since their withdrawal," said housewife Khairiya Salman, who lives near the palace."

This ties in nicely with Iraqi opinions about the surge and the US presence in Iraq. As this BBC article notes, 70% of Iraqis polled last month think the surge has failed, roughly 60% think attacks on US forces are justified, and a plurality, 47%, want US forces to leave Iraq immediately (Lets not even mention the majority of Americans who want the same thing).

Of course, all those defeatists hadn't seen last months casualty numbers when the poll was ocnducted - I am sure their views are very different now, and most of them are singing Hosannahs for the US troops, and writing poetic odes lauding the occupation.

Meanwhile, our elected leaders are condemning newspaper ads and arguing over whether Rush Limbaugh should be scorned or hailed for his remarks concerning "phony" soldiers. Hopefully House Appropriations Committee chair Dave Obey will stick to his guns ... maybe something will actually get done.

Surging downward

Alan Greenspan has a new book out today, and as is often the case with new books small excerpts are leaking out as agents and publishers attempt to build up demand for copies. However, even by such standards the one-liner making the round over the weekend seemed explosive:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Coming from a source such as Greenspan, this remark could be taken as particularly telling about the administration's real reasons for invading Iraq. Usually the people making such comments are left-wing, anti-war, anti-administration bloggers such as ... well ... myself. Or Liza.

Suffice to say, Greenspan doesn't fit the template.

Having thought about this some, however, and recognizing I have not read the book yet, I find it unlikely Greenspan is claiming the primary reason we invaded Iraq was oil, but rather that the reason we care about the region at oil is the oil reserves there, and Saddam was seen as a destabilizing force in an area we cared about. It's a small, but important distinction - had Saddam existed in, say, central Africa, he may still have been a destabilizing force but we likely wouldn't have invaded his nation, simply because there is nothing there we care about as much as we care about middle-Eastern oil.

Update: Greenspan seems to support this take in a Wall Street Journal interview available here.

Regardless of our rationale for the initial invasion, however, the supposed rationale behind the escalation this year took another body blow over the weekend when the faction of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr announced Saturday it would withdraw its support for Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Considering the Sadr faction had a significant hand in al-Maliki's being able to establish a parliamentary majority in the first place, this is another real body blow to the ability of the Iraqi government to continue to rule at all, much less effectively, at least as it is currently constituted.

The underlying purposes for sending more troops to Iraq was supposed to be to provide the government there "breathing space" to make some hard, but necessary, decisions regarding the future of the country. Instead, the government continues to spiral into chaos. I'm sure the administration will see that simply as further justification to keep troops there - if things are going well we need to keep troops there because things are going well, if things are going poorly we need to keep troops there because things are going poorly. Staying in Iraq is a tautology.

Meanwhile, there is an interesting new research paper (hat tip to Freakonomics) analyzing the data from the Iraq surge from an economist's stand point. The entire paper is worth a read, and the author concludes the signs are mixed, with casualty data (both civilian and military) pointing to the surge making some progress, but other data pointing toward a deteriorating situation.

However, the most interesting point, and most telling, is the author's analysis of the Iraqi bond markets - he determines that since the surge began, confidence in the ability of the Iraqi government to repay bonds it sells has fallen by 40%. Given the generally well-established track record of financial markets in predicting the future, this is pretty damning.

Combine it with the news last week that Hunt Oil Co., who's CEO Ray Hunt is on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, has struck a deal with the Kurdistan National Assembly to explore and drill in the Kurdish region, without the Iraqi government being included in the negotiations or contract, and it becomes increasingly clear which way the smart money is betting - against the administration.

Given the respective track records, that certainly seems the way to go.

Failing the test you created

Back last spring the administration agreed to accept establishing some "benchmarks" in return for receiving a no-strings-attached military spending addendum. These benchmarks were set to help determine what progress, if any, was being made as a result of the new surge of American troops sent to Iraq. They were set by the administration, in consultation with the Iraqi government and the US military.

In other words, these are the 18 guidelines which the administration itself said progress in Iraq , or lack thereof, should be measured by.

1. Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.

2. Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.

3. Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

4. Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

5. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

6. Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

7. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.

8. Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.

9. Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.

10. Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

11. Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.

12. Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying, “the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.

13. Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

14. Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

15. Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.

16. Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

17. Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

18. Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.


The administrations own analysis, by people with self-interest in presenting the most optimistic and positive view possible, found that only half of these guidelines had been met.

The non-partisan GAO, which has no stake in making things look optimistic or positive, found only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met (8, 14, 16), another four partially met (4, 9, 12, 17).

One can debate how difficult meeting these guidelines might be - heck, considering how wonderfully well all the training of Iraqis was going way back in 2004 according to Gen. Petreaus (who, after all, was in charge of said training at that time), meeting 9 and 15 should have been "gimme's" - but no one forced these on the administration. These were goals it set, and said "judge by these standards".

Well, the administration and the surge have been judged ... and they have been found wanting.

The bitching of legless men

MoveOn.org, an organization with liberal inclinations, ran a full page ad in the New York Times this morning, titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us." For those who managed to sleep through the news somehow, General Petraeus is on Capitol Hill this morning testifying before Congress about the state of affairs in Iraq.

I'm not going to defend the ad - regardless of what one thinks about the war or about Petraeus himself, he remains a dedicated career soldier who has given his entire adult life to the service of this country. I disagree strongly with his views, but he has earned my respect. He has done nothing to betray this country, or the soldiers under his command. Insinuations to the contrary are abhorrent.

What I do not need to hear, however, are remarks such as those posted today at Arizona 8th titled "On Questioning Patriotism". If there is a party in this nation who are the absolute experts on questioning the patriotism of their opponents, it is indisputably the conservative one with an elephant logo.

Those who have expressed concerns about the need to invade Iraq, or the need to have warrentless wiretapping, or the need for torture and rendition, or whatever else, have been regularly reviled as "unpatriotic". Such slander has been freely thrown about from members of the administration, Republicans within the House and Senate, conservative talking heads, conservative periodicals such as The New Republic, and conservative blogs.

So if you're going to get up in arms about having someone's patriotism questioned, fine - but start at the fucking start. Where were your shrieks of outrage in 2002-2004? You don't get to cherry-pick. I'm perfectly happy to castigate MoveOn, but conservatives as a whole have a whole lot of catch-up work to do before they get to cry about this one and have it be taken seriously.

So just stop talking. Seriously. The outrage of Republicans over this ad is both making me sick and setting me off on gales of derisive laughter such that it makes it hard for me to finish the nasty email I am composing to MoveOn.

Come back and open your mouths on the subject when you have a leg to stand on.

Sucky math skills

Way back in the dawn of time, last May, the President signed a military spending supplemental bill while at the same time proclaiming a list of 18 bench marks it was hoped the surge (supported by the new funding appropriations) would help the military and Iraqi government meet.

In July the administration provided an update on progress toward meeting those benchmarks, but even that most optimistically spun view found "satisfactory" progress had been achieved on only 8 of the 18. For the record, thats 44.4 percent.

The Washington Post got its hands on a copy of the soon-to-be-released GAO report, and it paints a completely starker picture, including:

* Finding the number of Iraqi units capable of independent operation declined from ten in March to six in July, contradicting the administration's findings.

* Finding the number of attacks on Iraqi civilians has remained effectively unchanged, going from 25 per day in February to 26 per day last month, directly contradicting the administration's claims.

In total, the GAO determined satisfactory progress has occurred on two of ten security benchmarks, and one of eight political ones. That's 20% and 12.5% respectively. Overall, it's a 16.67% success rate.

Meanwhile, our President is putting out word he will ask for as much as $50 billion more next month to further support the surge. That's in addition to the $147 billion request already on the table. Doing the math once again, we get $197 billion, a fair chunk of change.

Apparently our President thinks progress in Iraq has been soooooooo outstanding, that not only should we not re-evaluate as to whether we should be there at all, we should instead be pumping even more money, and more blood, into the struggle.

Frankly, I don't understand how a Yale degree can be as prestigious as it is when 16.67% isn't just considered a passing score, but is considered such a magnificent grade it's worth substantial reward ... like, say, an additional $50 billion attached to a no-restrictions spending bill.

Or perhaps our President simply needs to take one of x4mr's math courses.

September Storm

Last fall saw what was widely perceived as a pivotal election. Democrats took control of the House (which was expected, although the margin was larger than anticipated) and the Senate (which was a large surprise ... some pickups were expected, but not six). The unquestioned impetus for this revocation of Republicans was Iraq occupation, and the demands of the electorate that "something" be done about it.

What started off as a Congress filled with hope saw some early successes such as an increase in the minimum wage. However, the elephant in the room wasn't addressed until April, and ultimately the hopes of the majority of voters were denied when Congress passed a no-strings war funding bill to last through the summer. Not surprisingly, rather than being hailed as "bi-partisan", the story was instead how Democrats had backed-down in the face of demands from one of the least popular Presidents in our history.

Still, there remained some small beacon of light - at the end of the summer the spending bill wold lapse, and Congress would review the situation to see if the President's escalation merited further investment, both in lives and money, in what seemed increasingly like a quagmire.

Skip ahead to mid-August. Despite a series of claims of an improving military situation - including, but not limited to, the now (in)famous O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed piece in the NY Times, or the relentlessly warmongering Joe Lieberman (who recently pushed for action against Syria) - it's questionable as to whether the situation is really improving at all. As I have noted before, the military says attacks and civilian casualties are on the decline, but provides no actual numbers to support it. Independently compiled statistics seem to indicate civilian casualties are stable, but attacks have actually increased by 5%, which would directly contradict the claims of improvement.

Perhaps most importantly, US troop losses aren't showing any notable decline, and the loss of 14 more yesterday doesn't help in that regard.

Despite how they like to present their visits on talk shows and in op-eds, when O'Hanlon, Pollack, Lieberman, et. al. visit Iraq, they don't really visit Iraq. What they do is spend time in the Green Zone, maybe head out to a few cities where they visit with military officials, and maybe some carefully vetted Iranian representatives, and are essentially reliant for their "impressions" and "opinions" solely on information from these sources, information which they really can't verify.

Never mind that the opinion of those who actually are out risking their lives every day, those who really can attest to what the daily situation is like on the streets of Iraq, is nearly 180 degrees away from what these hit-and-run visitors present.

The latest to participate in one of these dog-and-pony shows is Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who returned from an extensive two-day survey the situation to announce:

"We visited forward operating bases in Mosul and Baghdad. In these areas, as well as a number of others in Iraq, the military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq, as articulated by him on January 10, 2007, appear to have produced some credible and positive results. "

...

"We note the continuing improvement in the ability and willingness of the Iraqi Army to conduct combat operations against the insurgents ..."

That would be the same Iraqi army who, along with Iraqi police, are helping insurgents place bombs along roadsides to kill Americans. Yes, that's progress.

Levin goes on to mention that while the military aspects may be improving, he sees little (if any) hope in the political realm. Of course, that caveat fails to get any mention ... all the headlines are along the lines of: "Surge working, Levin says".

It doesn't take the Oracle of Delphi to see where this is headed. Even though the entire point of the surge was to allow the Iraqi government to make some hard political decisions, which it has utterly failed to do, it won't take many Democratic defections to pass another military bill free of constraints such as time lines for withdrawal, despite that being the key underlying reason many of the freshman Democrats were elected in the first place.

These days you see a lot of posts at conservative sites (why, here's one now!) discussing how Congress "is even more unpopular than Bush". Which is true. It's the reasons for that unpopularity which they don't discuss, but which are most interesting.

A CBS poll from earlier this month spells it out nicely (via Greenwald):

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?"
						.
		Approve	Disapprove	Unsure
		%	%	%
	ALL adults	25	63	12
	Republicans	24	66	10
	Democrats	28	59	13
	Independents	23	66	11

The approval ratings among Republicans is actually somewhat high when compared to the percentage of Democrats who approved the last Republican Congress. Independents are lower, but not by a huge margin. What really stands out is the low percentage of Democrats who approve of the job Congress is doing. If that number were up in, say, the mid-60's, which is pretty typical for members of the party which controls Congress, the overall approval rating would be pretty standard.

Those disaffected Democrats (and one suspects a large number of the disaffected Independents) aren't upset because Congress "isn't supporting the troops", or is "micromanaging the war" or any other Limbaugh-led talking point. They're pissed off (and increasingly more so) because this Congress was elected large to create opposition to the administrations policies - to actually do something about warrentless wiretapping, about habeas corpus, about, most importantly, getting our young men and women out of Iraq.

All of which this Congress has steadfastly refused to do.

If Levin et. al. manage to talk themselves into caving to the President again next month, allowing yet another unfettered prolonging of the war ... well, if you want to see Congress play limbo with its approval ratings, there may never be a better opportunity

One step closer to another war

Various news outlets have reported today on administration plans to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the main core of the Iranian army, to be a terrorist organization. Combined with the reports last week of "Cheney and the Warmongers" pushing for military strikes in Iran, this is a huge concern.

The stories mention the idea of declaring a large part of the Iranian army to be terrorists is supported by Condoleezza Rice as a means of putting additional pressure on the Iranian government vis-a-vis negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. The primary goal seems to be increased sanctions against Iran from the UN security council.

I actually support that goal, and I am more supportive of Rice's approach towards Iran then the Chene-gang's bomb 'em now approach. I am afraid, however, this declaration will open some potential doors to the latter group as well.

First, such a declaration ties in nicely with the recent propaganda wave declaring all the evidence of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents. I mentioned yesterday some of the logical inconsistencies these claims bring up. Outside of that, however, the primary "evidence" cited for Iranian ties to the insurgents has been the increased use of explosively formed penetrators (EPFs) against US troops.

These devices are particularly dangerous as they are specially designed to penetrate armor, up to and including tank armor. Administration and military officials have been claiming the sophistication of these devices indicates they must have been built elsewhere (i.e. Iran) ... despite the fact a factory for making them was discovered in Iraq six months ago, thus proving insurgents have the capability of making them internally.

In addition to simply adding another line to the bomb-Iran chorus, however, there is a more insidious concern. If the Iranian army is declared to be terrorists, then under the terms of the Authorization for Use of Military Force the administration can launch attacks those forces without seeking further Congressional approval first.

So we have on one hand an increasing chorus of voices, including the Vice President's, actively advocating launching attacks against Iran, and on the other hand a political step which would make it easier for the administration to launch such attacks. We're on the verge of starting a war with yet another country allegedly in support of our troops who are in the midst of a civil somewhere they shouldn't be in the first place.

Apparently the "surge" has been so successful we're looking to bring it to other nations too, by unpopular demand!

Same song, second verse

McClatchey newspapers reported last week that the neo-con wing of the administration, led by Darth Cheney himself, are ardently agitating for an airstrike against alleged terrorist training camps inside Iran.

Just what we need - open hostilities with another Islamic nation. What, two isn't enough? For all the shouts of "jihadists" coming from some quarters, it almost seems like some elements of our government are determined on creating a crusade of their own.

This all ties in with the recent chorus of claims that Iran is providing material support to Iraqi insurgents. Of course, this creates an odd catch-22 for the administration - all this supposed aid from Iran is directed to Shiite factions, and attacks from Shiite organizations are on the uprise. Shiite factions are most assuredly not associated with al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, the administration has been busily trying to conflate all insurgent attacks in Iraq with al-Qaeda in Iraq, which itself is supposedly "the same people from 9/11". Except for the fact al-Qaeda in Iraq never existed prior to 9/11.

But what's a few blatant logical inconsistencies between friends ...

What makes this article especially worrisome to me are two items:

1. Warren Strobel, one of the authors of the McClatchy piece, was one of the few journalists who consistently got things right in the run up to the Iraq war, challenging administration claims about WMDs in Iraq, alleged nuclear programs, etc. On every matter, Strobel (and his co-author on many of those pieces, Jonathan Landy, was eventually shown to be right.

There is nothing new about neo-cons such as Cheney, Norman Podhoretz and others of their ilk pushing for new and better wars. However, the fact Strobel put his name to this recent article just makes it all the more credible that, even though Cheney hasn't had his way on the issue yet, he may in the near future.

2. The military is pushing the whole "these devices must have come from Iran" angle, despite having found a factory in Iraq making them as far back as last February. This is exactly the type of misinformation and propaganda used to stampede us into invading Iraq in the first place.

When in trouble, people revert back to what they know ... and apparently what certain significant portions of this administration know is "nuke em til they glow".

I can't believe I am saying this, but I am desperately hoping Condi prevails in this matter. Even as our troops continue to die in Iraq while the Iraqi government teeters on the edge of collapse, Cheney continues doing his damnedest to prove yet again he can always make things worse.

Success? This is Success?

Last month, "only" 80 US soldiers were killed in Iraq, down from 101 in June and a high of 126 in May. The administration and various war-supporters are already touting this as near irrefutable proof the surge is working, and if we just wait yet another six more months the true genius of Our Glorious Leader (and Dubya too!) will finally be revealed for all to see, even liberals.

Being the spoil-sport I am, however, I wanted to look at a few more of the numbers, which are available here. In looking at them, two things stand out:

1. The 80 deaths last month are essentially identical to the 83, 81 and 81 in January, February and March of this year respectively. That's when the surge was initiated. Put another way, there has been effectively no drop in US casualties per month since the start of the surge.

2. For whatever reason, possibly the onset of the stifling summer heat, both 2005 and 2006 saw low casualty figures for US troops in July when compared to adjacent months.

June 2005: 78
July 2005: 54
August 2005: 85

June 2006: 61
July 2006: 43
August 2006: 65

With 20 casualties so far in August, we are on pace for 88 or 89 more dead soldiers this month. I am sure the same set of people will find some way to explain to the heathen unbelievers such as myself why an uptick in the death count (if the pace continues) would also be evidence the surge is working.

The surge can't fail, only the rationale can fail. If the rationale fails, simply change the rationale. Long live the surge! ¡Desea vivo la oleada! Long live the Emperor! Er ... uhm ... we mean the Vice President of course.

Even if one looks at the numbers, though, and somehow manages to talk himself into believing the surge is succeeding militarily, what Lord Cheney, Prime Minion Bush and others induced to spread the gospel of Success In Iraq hope your forget - really, they need you to forget - is that the military aspect was always the least important part of the surge.

The whole point of placing additional troops in Iraq was to help create "breathing space" for the Iraqi government, which in turn was supposed to achieve certain political "benchmarks". The military aspects have always been secondary to the political ones.

Needless to say, however mediocre (at best) progress might be on the military front, it gets an A+ grade compared to the political situation.

Despite no progress whatsoever on meeting the desired benchmarks, the entire Iraqi parliament has opted to take a month break. In the interim, the largest Sunni block resigned at the start of the month, five more cabinet members announced yesterday they would boycott government meetings (an action one described as "first step toward withdrawal" from the government), and six ministers from Moqtada al-Sadr's faction, who walked out in April, show no sign of coming back.

Meanwhile, as the British prepare to pull out of Basra, Shiites there are pushing for more independence.

As we approach the mid-September date for the much-awaited report on the effects of the surge the Iraqi government, on whose behalf the surge was allegedly initiated in the first place, the government which is supposed to be making progress toward a new Constitution, agreeable power-sharing and financial arrangements, the government we have sent 30,000 more young Americans over to fight and possibly die for ... that government is on the verge of collapse.

Apparently I am overdue for my administration-sponsored brainwashing. No matter how hard I squint, no matter how rosy I tint my glasses, no matter how often I chant happy mantras to myself ("Mission accomplished!" "Greeted with flowers!"), no matter how much effort I expend in positive thinking ... I just can't make this look like progress.

Playing the odds

Conservative columnist/pundit Jonah Goldberg had a column yesterday accusing liberals of turning their back on genocide in Iraq when they call for our troops to be pulled out of the country, and further accuses them of hypocrisy for supporting intervention to prevent genocide in the 1990's, but "flipping" on it now.

Of course, this argument makes the assumption that pulling our forces out would lead to genocide in Iraq, but Goldberg addresses that:

Of course, some advocates of withdrawal try to maintain the moral high ground by arguing that there won't be genocidal slaughter -- though that usually sounds like self-delusion to me. Most close observers of the situation believe that if the U.S. were to sail out of Iraq, it would be on a river of Iraqi blood.

"The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom," a new report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution concludes, "is 135,000 American troops." Rapid withdrawal, the report says, could bring "a humanitarian nightmare" in which we should expect "hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die."

There are a couple things wrong with the above, however. The "new report" Goldberg cites is, in fact, neither particularly new nor a report. It is, instead, an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post last August, nearly a year ago. Also, it's not as if this opinion is universally shared within the Brookings Institute. A truly recent article (as in, from two days ago) from the same institution argues the US must withdraw now to contain civil war in Iraq. Furthermore, while the Brookings Institute as a while may be "liberal-leaning", it's questionable (at best) either author of the piece, Kenneth Pollack or Daniel Byman, fit that description in regards to their views vis-a-vis the Iraq war, at least as one can best conclude from perusing their publications.

Further, in considering what "close observers of the situation" have to say about what might happen if US troops withdraw from Iraq, Goldberg apparently doesn't think actual Iraqi citizens qualify. If he did, he would be aware the large majority those who might be most expected to fear genocide if left to fend for themselves actually think their security situation would improve.

Fair enough -- what's a little mischaracterization, disingenuousness and outright dishonesty between pundits after all? That doesn't mean Goldberg's underlying claim that pulling out from Iraq could lead to genocide. So lets examine his record as an Iraq prognosticator.

Perhaps most famously, in a debate from 2005 Goldberg said:

Let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now).

Well, those two years were up this past February, and Goldberg at least had the courage to do something which the current administration is chronically incapable of doing -- admit he as wrong.

That's not the only one, though ...

"Some pro-war arguments are very strong, some less so. But you have to add them all up together and look at the final tally. So: Is Iraq a brutal totalitarian regime? Check! Is it a proven threat to its neighbors? Check! Is it a proven threat to its own people? Check! Is it a proven threat to our allies? Check! Is it willing to export terrorism abroad? Check! Is it likely that if it got weapons of mass destruction, it would use them recklessly? Check! Is it working very hard to get weapons of mass destruction? Check! Would Saddam's people be better off without him? Check! Would we and our allies be better off without him? Check! Do we have the power and capabilities to get rid of him without paying too high a cost? Check! And, would getting rid of him make it less likely that another September 11 would "happen again"? Check."

And another ...

"I don't care if you hate George W. Bush; it's not like I love the guy. And I don't care if you opposed the war from day one. What disgusts me are those people who say toppling Saddam and fighting the terror war on their turf rather than ours is a mistake, not because these are bad ideas, but merely because your vanity cannot tolerate the notion that George W. Bush is right ... "

I actually spent a fair bit of time looking up statements by Goldberg on Iraq, and have yet to find one of any significance which has actually turned out to be correct. I imagine one such example must exist somewhere, but finding that needle-in-a-haystack is going to take more effort than I am willing to put in.

It's not just Goldberg of course -- nearly all well-known predictions made by conservatives regarding the course of the Iraq war have turned out to be wrong. Have you seen any Iraqi civilians greeting us as liberators and throwing rose petals at our tanks recently? Neither have I.

A common warning for prospective investors is "past performance is no guarantee of future results". Just because Goldberg and company have been wrong on nearly every single claim they have made regarding Iraq over the last 5 years is no guarantee they are wrong this time. If you had to trust someone on this matter, who would you choose? Conservative pundits or Iraqi's themselves?

Yes, a genocide may begin if we pull our troops out. If it does, we can revisit the situation - no one wants to see a genocide occur. If nothing else, were we to leave, then find ourselves having to go back to prevent a genocide situation, we would be likely to have more support from all quarters, home, abroad, and within the Iraqi populace itself ... and who knows, it's also possible form will hold, and Goldberg and Co. will be wrong on Iraq yet again.

I know which way I would bet.

What Sept. benchmarks?

Do you recall way back in February when the entire Iraqi "surge" notion was being debated? Do you recall those "benchmarks" which were supposed to be met by September? Well, it's becoming increasingly obvious none of those benchmarks will be met. Do you suppose this will lead to serious discussion within the administration regarding withdrawing troops from Iraq?

Of course not. The notion is laughable.

The New York Times has a story this morning discussing military plans to retain significant forces in Iraq at least into 2009:

By Michael R. Gordon

Published: July 24, 2007

BAGHDAD, July 23 — While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

The Reach of War

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.

Even just reading the opening three paragraphs above it is clear all that time the administration was talking about a "limited" surge and "reassessment" in the fall, it was well aware any real results would take years, if they came at all. The fix has been in from the start (yes, the administration lied about Iraq yet again, quelle surprise) -- no matter how grim the September assessment might be, there is no way the administration will not insist on continuing the occupation. To paraphrase another conservative icon, the only way we are going to get our troops home is if we "pry the war from (Bush's) cold, dead hands".

At this point, the only way troops might be brought home prior to 2009 is if Congress finally grows the cojones to insist upon it in funding bills (sending the same bills back when Bush vetoes them), or to defund the war entirely. Even then, it's uncertain the administration wouldn't simply appropriate the money anyway to carry on its glorious crusade.

Permanent Filibuster

The Senate had a sleepover last night, as Senate majority leader Harry Reid kept debate open on whether or not a bill to set a timeline to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq would get a voe. Although there were 52 votes in favor of bringing the matter to a formal vote, 60 were needed since Republicans were effectively filibustering the bill.

The Washington Post reports that, as part of the negotiations surrounding the matter minority leader Mitch McConnell suggested any Iraq-related amendment automatically require 60 votes to pass. Apparently this had been agreed to in a similar situation some months ago as a means of short-cutting certain procedural steps.

Think about that for a moment. McConnell is essentially stating outright that on any matter related to Iraq, if it might involve any restrictions on the President's handling of affairs then it will be filibustered. Senate Republicans are in a state of permanent filibuster, against the repeatedly expressed will of the citizens they purportedly represent.

Of course, McConnell and company could allow straight votes on the matters, knowing the President would veto the bill anyhow. However, they knowsthat would only make the President look bad (well, worse than he already does), and we can't be having that, now can we? So instead, they throw every possible parliamentary obstacle in the way as a means to protect the clown occupying the Oval Office for another 17 months.

Then they'll blame Democrats for "not passing legislation" or some such tripe.

Well, something is surging at least ...

... and it's most emphatically not the economy, which saw the weakest quarter for growth in over four year. The raw figures are 0.6% growth, instead of the 1.3% initially estimated (and which would have been pretty anemic in it's own right, especially when compared to the 5.6% growth rate from the first quarter a year ago). Hey, though, the economy's great, everything's fine, stay the course. Trust the administration. Pip pip cheerio and all that.

I could swear I have heard such words before ... now where was it ... hmmm ... oh yeah, it was that increasingly unpopular unnecessary war we started, and are still suffering through.

Senator Joe Lieberman just made a suprise visit to Iraq where he's once again claiming (as he did last year, and the year before that) that "progress is being made", and I suppose he's right if he means progressively more people are dying, both American and Iraqi.

As the Wall Street Journal noted today:

Can the Iraq 'Surge' Be Salvaged?

As Violence Seems to Outpace Progress, Officials Talk of Next Steps

By GREG JAFFE and YOCHI J. DREAZEN

WASHINGTON -- When the Bush administration decided to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq, the strategy rested on an unspoken trade-off: U.S. troops would risk greater casualties to tamp down violence and buy the Baghdad government time to make the political compromises needed to reconcile the country's warring factions.

But a resurgence of sectarian violence and attacks on U.S. troops, coupled with little to no progress on crucial Iraqi political goals, is already spurring discussion about whether the current strategy can succeed.

The article goes on to note, the roughly 120 US troop deaths this month (a figure which doesn't include yesterday or today) is the worst single month since the 2004 fighting in Fallujah, and I believe the third-worst month on record. Since the onset of the surge, casualties for US soldiers have risen steadily. However, the military has an explanation for that -- we have more troops, and they are patrolling more actively, so they are more often in harm's way. Fair enough, that makes sense.

However, there is supposed to be a trade-off for this increase in American deaths and injuries -- all the extra soldiers and extra patrols are supposed to make Baghdad, at least, a safer place for the Iraqi populace, and buy time for the government to come to some sort of agreement on various issues. Unfortunately, as the WSJ article also notes, that ain't happening. The number of unidentified corpses found this month and attributed to sectarian violence is up at least 25% from January. The Iraqi government is no closer to resolving its divisions.

There's still three more months until September, when the awaited assessment from General Petreus is due. Three long, hot, dry, dusty summer months which I don't expect will do a lot to help cool off the simmering tensions. No matter how often Baghdad Joe throws on the pantyhose and does his little song-and-dance routine in an attempt to lighten the mood, the only progress we seem to be making in Iraq is in the wrong direction.