Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 30, 2004
The Exit Strategy

A foreign policy trial ballon from a current Financial Times article:

Members of the municipal council of Basra, Iraq’s second largest city, have been holding talks with officials from councils in two neighbouring provinces on establishing a federal region in the south, … The three provinces – Basra, Missan and Dhiqar – account for more than 80 per cent of the proved oil reserves of the country’s 18 provinces and provide a large share of the national income.

people close to the Iraqi government say some officials driving the autonomy talks are backed by Muqtada al-Sadr, the renegade Shia cleric who launched an uprising against American troops in July.

This Fictional Times article, January 2005, puts more light on the issue:

The occupation authorities in Iraq have secretly asked two confidants, who afore had been appointed to the city council of Basra, to take over the government of the southern province. They are to form an administrative unit with those two neighbour provinces that account for most of Iraq’s oil reserves.

Only one cabinet member from the southern provinces is member of Prime Ministers Allawis cabinet, created by the Coalition Provisional Administration. “Unfortunately this now allows The South to complain about under representation in the central government.” the US ambassador to Iraq, Mr. Negroponte, explained. “We are trying to correct this sad error by lobbying the central government for more local latitude in The South.”

A Marine Corp general in Bagdhad gave some background on the military situation. “As the 15 northern provinces are now controlled by Iraqi personal, we can immediately reduce our troop numbers significantly. 50,000 men and women will stay in Iraq and will continue to build democracy. For logistical reasons I have proposed to station them exclusivly in the Autonomous Southern Provinces. This will shorten our lines of communication as supply will come through the harbour of Basra. It´s also only a short jump from our air bases in Kuwait.”

A British general added: “As the British troops are leaving, the American forces will take over our tasks. There have been less clashes here as in the Kurdish Kirkuk, the Sunni triangle and the Shia areas around Najaf, so their task here will be a lot easier. There will be fewer body bags.”

Prime Minister Allawi could not be reached for a statement as he is currently consulting with Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf. Al Sadr, who had been said to be interested in the southern provinces, had denied such ambitions and had pointed out that no significant symbolic places of Islam are located in the south. After Sistanis death, the young cleric is expected to control the significant money flow generated by Shia pilgrimage in Najaf.

“The process we are now engaged in, will lead to a completely Autonomous South” a former senior official working at the AEI in Washington envisioned. “That new national entity has strong family and tribal relations with their brothers across the southern border. In the long term these borders may vanish and a reunited Dawlat al Kuwayt will emerge as a new prosperous and peaceful diamond in the northern Gulf.”

The Financial Times article Oil-rich Iraqi provinces push for autonomy is just the trial ballon. They are dead serious with this concept and for the neocons as for the realists it makes a whole lot of sense. If the other 15 Iraqi provinces will be a dirt poor hell on earth – who cares?

Comments

I think you are on to something here Bernhard.
These ideas willingly fit together nicely in the mind. It is a very soothing solution.
Circle the Humvees in the south, create a patch of psuedo democracy, and get on with it.
What is it?
It is the sucking sound of many mouths and greasy hands massaging the stopcocks of billions of barrels of Southern Iraqi oil.
(To put it crudely.)
I think Cheney just had two orgasms.
Hurry–someone put a nitroglycerine tablet under that drooling tongue.

Posted by: koreyel | Sep 30 2004 16:41 utc | 1

Déja vù!
In a thread not to long ago there was a discussion on the possible division of Iraq and an invasion of Iran, as Asia times prophezised.
My guess was that the will carve up Iraq, leaving the middle to its own and holding on to the north (the Kurds) and the south. My prediction was then and is still that the US will have trouble finding a strong-man for the south. Lets see who will turn up.
Al Sadr? 🙂

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Sep 30 2004 16:46 utc | 2

From xymphora:
The essay A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon, published in 1982, contains the following paragraph on Iraq:
“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.”
The Iraqi-Iranian war failed to accomplish the dissolution of Iraq, so the Americans were tricked by the neocons into the attack on Iraq, largely through the efforts of Douglas Feith feeding erroneous Israeli-prepared intelligence into the American political system. Feith will no doubt someday be honored by a statue in Israel. Israeli or American agents provocateurs currently operating in Iraq are finishing the job proposed by Yinon, as part of a similar ongoing operation against all the Arab states, of breaking the country up into small, unthreatening ethnic enclaves. Everything that we see going on in Iraq today has to be seen in the light of the long-standing Zionist plans for the Middle East.
Yinon Essay
xymphora

Posted by: Blackie | Sep 30 2004 20:12 utc | 3

I have four (damn, more) words for you : Weimar/Baghdad Republic. And Basra/Austria Anschluss.
And a guy with a funny mustache in two decades.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Sep 30 2004 21:58 utc | 4

My God- I thought of almost exactly this same solution, long ago, as a joke! So did you mean Financial Times or Fictional Times as you called it over the second blockquote?

Posted by: Mooser | Sep 30 2004 22:50 utc | 5

So, the US hope to control Iraqi oil with a separatist Shia South mostly ruled by Al-Sadr? Well, I would rather go with something like Marcin Gomulka’s idea, except I would put Tehran as Germany and Rump Shia Iraq as annexed Austria. At the very least, it would be a puppet of Iran.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Sep 30 2004 23:12 utc | 6

So the plan is a Shia controlled southern province. Hmmm…sharia law, send women back to the 9th century, autocratic rule by a collection of religious old men….well, gosh, small price to pay for peace and oil, even if it ain’t exactly democracy.

Posted by: maxcrat | Sep 30 2004 23:57 utc | 7

Seems to make sense that Sadrists would be helping this effort. Even though they were driven out of Najaf, they seem to have some support in Basra. That handy insurgency map shows 3 attacks a day against the British for the last month. If Muqtada really is a driving force behind this, then “Southistan” might not be so receptive to American interests.
But with the Kurds continuing to quietly take over oil-blessed Kirkuk, there will be at least one friendly, orderly oil-producing region in Iraq.

Posted by: Harrow | Oct 1 2004 3:55 utc | 8

It’s exactly what happened with Kuwait 80 years ago. The trouble from the British and US point of view was that when Kuwait was hived off from the rest of Mesopotamia the Basra oilfields had not been discovered otherwise they would never have let all that oil fall in the control of such a large population.
The other 20% of reserves is in the Kurdish North so it will be a simple matter to completely cut off the bulk of the Iraqui population from oil, the sea, money or anything anyone might want and leave em as another bunch of poverty stricken Muslims without the wherewithall to shape their destiny.
Damn! Maybe this has been the gameplan all along. In which case I’ll definitely consider Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a US agent provocateur.
He is the only member of the resistance to that is heedless of Iraqui casualties, it would explain how Nick Berg mysteriously moved from US captivity into Zarqawi’s hands and why so much of what Zarqawi does appears counter productive.
We’re mostly aware of the inconsistencies and weirdness in the Berg execution but as well as that Zarqawi had been sitting in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq outside Hussein’s reach, protected by the US no fly zone for several years prior to the invasion. He also blundered around with primitive nerve gases pre invasion which would have been useless to him since he had no delivery system, but enabled Cheney and Rice to use this to muddy the WMD waters just as he’s been the proof that there are ‘foreign terrorists with Al Qaeda links” in Iraq.
The poor bloody Iraquis don’t stand a chance in the face of such avaricious mendacity.

Posted by: Debs in ’04 | Oct 1 2004 6:50 utc | 9

A week old article by Spengler.
I don’t read this guy too much anymore – as I suspect he is at heart a racist .. but he does have some interesting insights from time to time.
Anyway – this is not a long way from Bernhard.
Spengler
The moment recalls French Marshal Ferdinand Foch’s 1914 dispatch from the Marne: “My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.” To be specific, the United States will in some form or other attack Iran while it arranges the division of Iraq.

If Washington chooses to dismember Iraq rather than pacify it, who will win and who will lose? Washington always has had the option of breaking up the Mesopotamian monstrosity drawn by British cartographers in 1921. The only surprise is that it has taken US intelligence so long to reach this conclusion. Whether America’s policymakers are slow learners, or whether Bush chose to perpetuate the farce of Iraqi nation-building until the November elections, we may never know. An Iranian alliance with Iraq’s Shi’ites poses a danger to this maneuver. But that danger, in turn, drives the US toward action against Iran.

Personalities are less important than the layout of the chessboard. America’s next move will be to break out of the stalemate in Iraq by widening the conflict.

Posted by: DM | Oct 1 2004 8:28 utc | 10

I’ve said it before, but this comparison to Foch and France in late 1914 is just stupid. France faced invasion and humilating defeat, homeland was partly occupied by Germans, and there was no way to know what the Germans would ask this time, but most of the colonies was a given, and maybe even a few more departments in the East would’ve passed into German hands. So, the Marne was basically the last stand of French patriots ready to die defending their country.
Iraq is Americans going into a land far away for no clear reason, and most people there realise this has nothing to do with defending the US from annihilation. Expecting them to fight as fiercely as the French under Foch is ludicrous.
Beside, Foch was a good military strategist and tactician; Bush is on par with Mussolini when it comes to leading military operations (“We’ll invade Greece by this road; send the tanks and infantry now!” “Duce, that’s not a road there on the map, it’s a mountain river”).
Though their ineptitude doesn’t mean they realise they’re inept; they made enough stupid decisions not to be deterred from making more.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Oct 1 2004 10:28 utc | 11

Anybody here know why this:
Congressman wants AIPAC prober probed
A U.S. congressman wants the Bush administration to probe the man investigating the premier pro-Israel lobby. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.
“JTA” , 2004.09.29 20:06
can’t be found anymore?

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 1 2004 11:46 utc | 12

Anybody here know why this:
Don´t know Uncle $cam, I didn´t delete anything.

Posted by: b | Oct 1 2004 12:52 utc | 13

That’s what Americans do where ever they want…they encourage and help and bribe separatists …they did it in Kosovo too and are now pushing for independent state of Kosovo. They did it in ex Yugoslavia by arming Croatians , Bosnian muslims and others. They did it with USSR too…Chechens…and others…where ever it is convenient for their interest.
Divide and do what ever you want…
They call it POLITIC!
May universal forces arrange for USA to fall a part in as many small pieces as possible! I am believer and I strongly believe it will happen as a universal justice that never failed in a long term.There was NOT Empire that lasted for ever. I may not see it in my life time but I’ll pray for it not as revenge but as cosmic justice.
Where ever American “foot” comes there are deaths and suffering and theft and corruption. Do not fool yourself that you have done anything good in Japan or Germany or anywhere…the price in blood was so high where ever you have paid with anything good in order to clean your conscience.
Iraq is just one more country to add to the list…and most of Americans sleep well at night I suppose…

Posted by: vbo | Oct 1 2004 14:11 utc | 14

ohh, puhleeaase , vbo, USSR?
The USSR split up because the particular nations wanted it to, not because of US involvment.
Estonia, Litwa and Lotwa have joined the EU since, and I am sure they would tell you to go to hell if you asked them to reunify with Russia.
Your post is so blatantly anti-American, that I have to assume that you are ventilating some personal anger. You use too many unjustified generalisations. For instance, you wrote “where ever” (or “anywhere”) 5 times. Generalisations are something to avoid in a discussion, because in the real world there no ‘100%-and-always’ situations.
( Some random examples for you: ‘ALL foreigners are thieves’, ‘ALL arabs are terrorists’, ‘ALL Poles are drunk and lazy’, ‘you ALWAYS make a mess’, ‘you NEVER are on time’. )
Japan and Germany are also questionable examples to provide as an argument.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 1 2004 17:38 utc | 15

Middle East specialist scholar despondent: Greater Risk Than Ever by Walter Andrews, prof. Near Eastern Lang and Civ.

In the Middle East the one major thing that legitimizes a ruler or regime is the ability to provide stability and security. There is a venerable saying in Arabic that goes something like this, “Better a hundred years of tyranny than one day of fitna (civil chaos).” This is how a Saddam Hussein can be seen by many as an acceptable ruler.

I think he’s made a good point here. history illustrates many time over the preference of the populace for any kind of security, order, and predictability in daily life (even heavy repression) over anarchy and the fragmented rule of warlords, neighbourhood mafias and bullyboys, roving gangs, etc.
here I suppose I must say for the record that I don’t doubt that Saddam was a nasty man. I’m not trying to rehabilitate his rep, gawd knows. just point out that the average person will embrace a dictator if the alternative looks like criminal chaos.
hell, we could say that the American people did to a limited extend embrace a dictator — or at least the quasi-dictatorial ambitions of the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld junta — in response to one, just one, incident of chaos and murder in one city, on one day. that one incident cowed Americans to the extent that most are willing to give up the Constitution, give up whatever good reputation America had on the world stage, give up their intelligence, their right to free speech and civil protest, their right to privacy — and perhaps most tellingly, their private and public conscience.
BushCo isn’t in the Saddam league when it comes to oppressing citizens at home. in the world championships for Repressive Regimes, the current crew occupying the White House is still pretty far down in the tables. but the underlying principle holds — that the Americans accepted a radical (not conservative) right wing assault on everything from civil liberty to constitutional law, simply because they were terrified of chaos, violence, and randomness.
in the light of all this it doesn’t surprise me a bit, nor does it make me despise or contemn the Iraqis, when I read about an Iraqi pundit who says that if Saddam could get out of US jail and run for office back home, he’d be elected instantly. at least when the Big Thug was in charge, people knew where they stood. the people who were most directly repressed by him and whose lives were ruined by him and his boys, would probably cast a dissenting vote (Anyone But Saddam!); but a substantial chunk of the public would say, Anyone Who Can Get the Lights Back On.

Posted by: DeAnander | Oct 1 2004 18:58 utc | 16

@ DeAnander
Gravity’s Rainbow ?
I bet Thomas Pynchon has a wicked sly, told ya so,
grin

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 1 2004 19:53 utc | 17

Not to be vague, but my Rube Goldberg thought process keeps running the Gravity’s Rainbow post war / pre new government chaos — tape loop through my brain — as GW Slothrop stumbles through and over the wreakage he has unwittingly created and perpetuates, as he so fades……….and fades……………..away.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 1 2004 20:09 utc | 18

Here’s an excellent analysis of the strategy for taking back control of Iraqi cities before their election – about 1 or 2 steps before the Exit Strategy, and necessary for Bush to be able to reach the endgame.

The new U.S. strategy, then, is targeted at the cities where the guerrillas and their clerical leadership dominate, notably Falluja, Samarra, Tal Afar, and Sadr City (though there are several others which have not been in the news lately). The U.S. method is to negotiate with the clerics, offering extensive reconstruction aid in exchange for calling off the insurgency and perhaps delivering the guerrilla fighters over to the U.S. (They call this negotiating with the moderates to split with the militants.)
If they can get an agreement, then the U.S. marches into town and arrests at least some of the guerrillas, using informants to determine whom to target. If the guerrillas resist arrest, the U.S. annihilates them and the areas they take refuge in. If they melt into the population, then the Iraqi police and National Guard take up stations within the city to enforce the rule of a re-established local government. American troops outside the city maintain the capacity to intervene against any effort to challenge the police or National Guard.
To force an agreement, the U.S. threatens both economic and military attacks on the city as a whole. Part of the plan is to use brutal air power that can annihilate buildings or whole city blocks in an effort to convince residents and leaders that the cost of resistance is simply too high. The underlying assumption is that the “moderates” will eventually choose to negotiate rather than see their city destroyed. As one marine officer in Falluja told Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chadrasekaran, the goal is “to split the city, to get the good people of the city on one side and the terrorists on the other.”

This sounds a lot like what we’ve been reading about here at the Moon for a while, but Schwartz does a good job looking at the major “insurgent enclaves” and how well or badly these tactics are working. It doesn’t include the latest violence in Samarra, and whether it will cow or enrage the local people.

Posted by: Harrow | Oct 2 2004 2:35 utc | 19

I am anti-American (policy) big time and I am not hiding it.
I was pro-American big time (even after American bombardment of my country in 1999) until recently when my eyes opened wide.
I was anti communism in a big way but I learned a lot last 10 years living in western (pro- and alike American) kind of democracy and I don’t think about socialism that bad as I used to.
Quote:
“The USSR split up because the particular nations wanted it to, not because of US involvement.”
***
Ohhhh pleassseeee…particular nations still want to separate (be independent) around the globe (Northern Ireland, Basks people in Spain, Corsica, Serbian republic in Bosnia and many more…) …Why they can’t split ???????????
Quote:
“Estonia, Litwa and Lotwa have joined the EU since, and I am sure they would tell you to go to hell if you asked them to reunify with Russia.”
***
Well first of all I don’t really know about Estonia Litwa and Lotwa (or what ever the spelling is) and how better of they may be joining EU but I know little bit more about other Eastern European countries that are now COLONIES of EU with their cheep (slavery) labor and resources and they had to bloody SELL everything worthy they ever had…Oh yes they now are selling all of the junk western consumerism can offer, oh what a joy(most of the people can only look at shiny shop windows and dream of being able to afford anything similar).
Their countries are back to feudalism with 2 % of bloody rich (mafia and alike) and 98 % of almost hungry people that MUST support their families mostly doing things against and out of the low.
Did you ever managed to see how in all of those countries people tend to vote communists AGAIN after they tried what ever has been sold to them as “western freedom and democracy”.
Of course it’s not an answer to their problems.
I am not in favor of EU as such and I do consider all of them being very similar in their foreign policies. What ever makes them richer is OK no matter what the price is for others. I may be an idealist when I expect fairness in politic. But Americans just went out of the way big time and that makes me angry as hell.

Posted by: vbo | Oct 2 2004 7:12 utc | 20

@Harrow
I’m not confident that we can any longer split the moderates from the radicals – not that the two can’t be split, but that Americans or even Europeans aren’t the ones to do it. The radicals seem dedicated to making anyone who collaborates with Amero-Europeans pay with their lives, and from the reports we do manage to get here, I would imagine that it is too dangerous for most people to negotiate with the U.S. at all. A few exceptions exist, such as Sistani, but I imagine even he can’t afford to give in to the U.S. when it threatens to destroy whole city blocks.
Sistani might give in after several blocks were destroyed, but at that point we would already have lost any chance of getting out with our souls (these seem to be necessary for holding together a society, ours).
If we commit – in public – to blowing up entire city blocks, then we have announced ourselves as Nazis, and God help us, because many of those troops will eventually go insane or kill themselves first. And we will go to hell, just a bit behind the Iraqis.
The facts are clear. We are in there because Bush the smarter had his people (April Gillespie?) greenlight Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait 13 years from now, and no matter how you look at it, we have no damned excuse for collectively punishing the people of Iraq based on that.
We do not have the legitimacy to separate the moderates from the radicals. Worse for us if we ignore this problem.
Apologies if I am overboard on tone, but wargame logic cannot be taken for the whole picture here.

Posted by: Citizen | Oct 2 2004 7:55 utc | 21

“…Saddam Hussein’sinvasion of Kuwait 13 years ago

Posted by: Citizen | Oct 2 2004 7:59 utc | 22

Quote:
BushCo isn’t in the Saddam league when it comes to oppressing citizens at home.
***
Maybe, just maybe you should ask Arabs and other Muslims that live in USA how oppressed they feel? How things are going with their civil rights ? Remember “they first came for Jews …” We all hear about people being sent by USA government to other countries to be tortured and killed…how different it is to what Saddam did ? It is easy to forget those things like they never happened…but they are still happening as we speak.
It’s not that I don’t agree with you DeAnander in general…

Posted by: vbo | Oct 2 2004 13:04 utc | 23

Reuel Marc Gerecht has an excellent, must-read analysis, The Battle for Iraq, in the Weekly Standard. (Avail. among today’s collection of linked articles at realclearpolitics.com.)

Posted by: Pat | Oct 2 2004 14:50 utc | 24

The Law of Administration – Transitional Period (signed 8 March 2004, largely written by the CPA), also called the ‘interim constitution’:
Chapter 8, Article 52.
The design of the federal system in Iraq shall be established in such a way as to prevent the concentration of power in the federal government that allowed the continuation of decades of tyranny and oppression under the previous regime. 
It has been bruited about that Bremer – before he scurried off two days early, on 28 June, skipping in his desert boots – wrote a sneaky clause into the law, namely that the laws applicable up to 30 June, which he wrote, would continue to apply, which meant that the interim Gvmt. was powerless to change them.
That is incorrect:
Section A of Article 26
Except as otherwise provided in this Law, the laws in force in Iraq on 30 June 2004 shall remain in effect unless and until rescinded or amended by the Iraqi Transitional Government in accordance with this Law.
(further..)
No amendment to this Law may be made except by a three-fourths majority of the members of the National Assembly and the unanimous approval of the Presidency Council. 
Link
As I read it, the Interim Gvmt. could have shredded any of Bremer’s democratic inspirations, including the ‘Federal Iraq’ clause, which was generally interpreted as potentially leading to trouble, by al-Sistani, amongst others.
That they did not choose to do so can be interpreted as: 1) puppets bowed to the masters; 2) a weird status quo, an apparent domination by USuk (as the previous official occupiers of Iraq, according to UN resolution number x), was preferable, as it extended a situation where the Geneva Conventions might be deemed applicable.
The Geneva Conventions prohibit occupiers from selling off the assets of the occupied country, which is why Bremer was given the boot – nobody would buy soap factories or land or anything as the lawyers told potential buyers that when Iraq was ‘free’ Iraq could just take those assets back, and would probably sue also.
Unfortunately for USuk, under Bremer’s CPA, Governements, corporations, businesses and individuals persisted in behaving as if the Geneva Conventions were valid and might be invoked one day.
After all, the Americans kept saying there would be elections in Iraq. Iraq would be free. That was their position, and everyone was supposed to believe it, or at least pay lip-service to it or behave as if it were true. Once free, it would have used international law to recuperate its factories, buildings, land.. lawyers and insurers could not ignore this possibility and had to forcibly warn and restrain their clients.
I am not a lawyer, perhaps I have interpreted all this incorrectly. (?…I’d like to know…) Also, the confusion on the ground is hard to grasp…. So many diverse interests, divided opinions.
The neo-con dream of a glittering cum grovelling free market emporium in Iraq was stillborn.

Posted by: Blackie | Oct 2 2004 15:42 utc | 25

@Pat – that “Analyse of Gerecht in my view is a collection of half truthes to come up with the slogan “lets do more of the same”.
First he is framing the whole scenario as there is choice 1 or choice 2, where 1 is more “Iraqification” by putting Iraq troops in front of US troops when storming the cities and 2 is to put in every marine the US has now and storm the cities. He calls for more blood, because the Iraqis “do not feel beaten yet”.
Why not just drop an H-bomb on Bagdhad? These are not alternatives, these are two variants with the same catastrophic outcome.
An available choice could probably be this. Call the old Iraqi Army back into duty, as Jordans king asked for last week. Pay them well and equip them well – there are some tenthousands M113, mortars and trucks in US depots. Have a president that publicly and openly on an International scene declares the war a big mistake and eats some crow. Call an inner Iraqi conference of Iraqi clerics of all religions and let them find a way to pick a government and a way to the future. They are the authorities, not Allawi and Co. If they Sunni, Shia, Christians, Jews publish a commen edict, it will be followed.
Leave the country immediately by giving military/police control to the old army and with a promise to guarantee its outer boarder for the next ten years so no neighbor will get bad ideas. Pay an unconditional $5,000,000,000 each years for the next 10 years. press the Kuwaiti into nullifying their redicules $100 billion reparation claim. The international comunity will follow that beat.
Doable in my view, with much less blood lost and better results ten years from now than any alternative.
Will the US do so? No. Gerecht thinks the Iraqis have to be “beaten” so they feel they have lost, because their culture does not allow them to accept defeat in any other way.
With a look at Vietnam I believe it is exactly the US culture Gerecht is describing.
Will the US over time do the right thing? Yes sure it will. Unfortunatly only after it has tried all other alternatives.

Posted by: b | Oct 2 2004 16:34 utc | 26

particular nations still want to separate (be independent) around the globe (Northern Ireland, Basks people in Spain, Corsica, Serbian republic in Bosnia and many more…) …Why they can’t split ???????????
The USSR was a UNION of REPUBLICS bound by ideology, but not by nationality. When the ideology failed, the nations decided to separate.
Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union
History_of_post-Soviet_Russia
If you did not notice, Yugoslavia DID split. Although violently.
The rest can’t just split. In those areas are enough people who are against it. I am also being told that currently more Basks say that the ETA is a criminal organisation than a national liberation movement.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 3 2004 16:56 utc | 27

Pat, I read the article you recommended at 10:50 AM, and I don’t regret having taken the time to do so. But I don’t see the “excellent, must-read analysis” that you find there. Highly detailed and well informed as it may be, it nonetheless refuses to entertain one simple hypothesis–namely, that all the contending parties in Iraq are making common cause to drive Americans from their soil, and that this aim is a source of strength that the US with all its military strength can never overcome . Or to put it another way: why would Gerecht sacrifice our Marines to such a foolish cause? As best I can tell, he’s just another neo-con hell-bent on hijacking the United States to keep us on the ground in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel. Is there any other way to read his article?

Posted by: alabama | Oct 3 2004 17:31 utc | 28

pat
im here listening to steve earle while reading walter benjamin – a mind like an extremely sharp knife clouded by a permanant state of melancholia – the gifts of benjamin are so great – it will take a century or two to absorb them
steve earle is new – have come late, it appears very late to him – he reminds me profoundly of the magisterial cowboy & communist cisco houston
but to the point – i am often moved by your posts & helped by your links – but sometimes i find some of them extremely perplexing & sometimes worryingly so
you know pat that the gangsters who parade up & down the white house like so many tattoed dwarves in a hallucinatory circus that seems to never end – don not have a plan – never have – as i’ve sd they are incapable of conspiracy but they are capable of low scheming because they are at once the whores & pimps of capital. everything seems to rotated around their immediate selves & their interests. clearly they are not looking at the future in any sense that is substantial. the erros they are making is so much like apartheid south africa – uttmost brutality mixed with concession being made at the last possible moment. it is a disastrous & perhaps even apocalyptic way of running business
but i disagree with alabama – i do think oil is a principal reason & i do think that they want control in m e to challlenge china in the last instance. this does not require conspiracy – simply rat cunning
& if ever rat cunning had a person to fit it mr rove would fulfill that role – don’t think there has been that kind of rat cunning since frank nitti, lucky luciano & of course their totemic leader meyer lansky
what is missing in their plans – is competence & clarity – because i feel they are congenitally incapable of even the most clumsy attempt at a machiavellan politics. they are dunces – they are not the clever boys they think they are. they are just the best of a bad crowd
they also lack courage – real courage & that became clear on september 11 when they were confronted by people who were prepared to be courageous to arrive at their goals. their goals were of course sinister – any fundamentalism is by its very nature. this most complex world cannot afford absolutes of any king – that way leads only to madness
but as deanander has clearly pointed out your country is filled with hysteria & fear & it is not new – it is an old tool of capital to hide the natural affinities of orfdinary/extraordinary people
& it has a name – misanthropy. what the central command & the neoconservatives have in common is a hatred, a real hatred of the people. & it is the people who always face the real risks
this battery of clowns is not even responsible for their opinions which is not surprising since they are so undergraduate in nature
the americans will lose in iraq – whether they bomb samarra or fallujah to the next life – because in the end their brutality is without meaning except the extinguishing of life & culture. the iraquis & the world will pay dearly for that lack of meaning but it is clearly the last days of the empire
i rember tomaso buscetta – the mafia pentiti – when asked after the boms that killed the magistrates falcone & borsellino & the assasination of salvatore lima – the mafi senator & primary connection between the monster andreotti & the monster toto riina – busceta sd that rather than being an expression of power to kill these judges it was an expression of weakness. he sd the mafia at ease with itself did not need & on the contrary averted expressions of the kind of brutal violence used in iraq
i feel you can find a connection between riina & bush – riina came close to destroying la cosa nostra – because he had no other plan than slaughter – a methodic & faustian form of massacre existed under his reign – that in the end – this sicilian institution which had survived longer than a century began to collapse in on itsef. men of honour – spoke – it was unthinkable – buit riina had confronted them with even worse – as an organisation – it has deconstructed ever since. what they have in common is greed – a greed that only a rupert murdoch can tell us about – a greed that is beyond us mere mortals – a greed for more than the world can offer – it is demonic in principle & in fact
i think these criminals are capable of the worst things in iraq in the homeland itself – they have already proved that capacity in the bluntest manner – the silencing of a real public discourse. it also has a name – the patriot act 1 & 2. what is happening in your country is beyon the wildest imaginings of even the most venal capitalist of the fifties. perhaps the milliken boesky axiswas an indication – where very few man could destroy & crush the destinies of many. now that crushing is public policy
what it will create in the end is a weak, hysteric & demented country incapable of a consistent policy & as john le carre has george smiley telling us – of how it will end for his nemesis – karla – it will end tragically – because he posesses no moderation
the absence of moderation has been the banner the republicans have held ever since bush crawled into the white house
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 3 2004 18:25 utc | 29

@ remembereringgiap
You are wicked in comparing Toto Riina to the boy Bush. Although they are similar in intellect, Riina killed mostly those directly in the business while Bush makes no distinction whatsoever – making Riina slightly more honorable.
I really enjoy reading your posts, I often have to run to google to find out what you are talking about but that is what makes all this fun, isn’t it. On the other hand, you are almost always able to throw me into a deeper state of depression. That too is part of the experience. Perhaps we have been comfortably numb for far too long.
Evenso, every now and then, you might tell us a story with a happy ending. Surely you know some. I for one could use it.

Posted by: Dan of Steele | Oct 3 2004 19:06 utc | 30

@alabama
Gerecht rightly points out that the US cannot prevail in Iraq without fighting another war there. (The last war ended, for all intents and purposes, just when Bush said it did, in May of 2003. What we’ve seen since is most decidedly anything BUT war.) By ‘prevail’ I mean just what the Pentagon and the White House mean: the creation of conditions favorable for the establishment and security of a new Iraqi government – one that can hold the country together.
At no time has there been any good indication that the White House (or even the Pentagon) is prepared to undertake another, and yet more demanding, war in Iraq. (Nor that Allawi would approve it.) What it faces, as a result, is a series of moves and counter-moves in an escalating stalemate between Iraqi and multinational forces, on the one hand, and their opponents on the other.
OIF can be sustained until 2006 and not beyond. (A draft can’t change this, so the paranoid can calm down.) This makes for an ever-shrinking window of opportunity to defeat the guerilla movement – something, again, that the White House has preferred not to do. In the event that the insurgency survives until mid-to-late 2005, then there is but one option: secure your airspace and go home. Iraq then probably breaks up into three or four provinces, as the Iraqis hash it all out themselves. (Those not interested in becoming hash will depart for Jordan and other countries.) It’s really as simple as that.
Gerect’s article is valuable as a reminder of the stark choice presenting itself: Fight a war or go home. He’s optimistic that that war will be fought, but he does not take into account our shrinking timeline, only the continued reluctance of the White House and the Pentagon to get on with it. I see no radical changes in our operations on the horizon.
That signals a game over to me.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 3 2004 19:13 utc | 31

dan of steele
i think i’m reacting at once to my illness & to some extent to the optimism of the letters sent by michael moore. while i respect him as john berger does for allowing the beautiful stars of fury to be felt within a ‘cultural’ context – he’s a bit like a big cheerleader – his heart & his head are in the right place – & we must not search to find recriminations in a character that is almost saint like in relation to the gangsters within the bushcheney junta
but but…i would prefer to prepare for the worst possible outcome because the forming of communites of resistance will become a necessity for many, many people who will be silenced & destroyed otherwise
the only happy story i hild at the moment is of the old tyrant pinochet finally being faced with a few hard questions
but even there there is a sad history – history tells us for the most part that the andreottis, the pinochets etc will die in their beds unpunished except for their obvious interior poverty
d of s – i’ll search for a happy story this week, tryuly i will
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 3 2004 19:26 utc | 32

@alabama
We’ll end up maintaining no-fly zones in the north and south in any case, as we did after the Gulf War, but this will be done from bases outside Iraq.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 3 2004 19:28 utc | 33

pat
you are not mrs hackworth by any chance
the highly respected wife of the highly decorated soldier
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 3 2004 19:30 utc | 34

I don’t know how accurate this site is, however even if it is not all true, it is the kind of information (or maybe probaganda) apparently circulating in Russia? If it is true, it looks as if the situation in Samara is very bad for the US.
Battle Of Samara – 7 Helicopters Downed, 147 Troops Killed

Posted by: Fran | Oct 3 2004 19:39 utc | 35

More on Samara by Riverbend.
Samarra Burning…

Posted by: Fran | Oct 3 2004 19:55 utc | 37

@rememberinggiap
Is Hack even married? Must be the combination of black turtleneck sweaters, paint-peeling voice, and (not unpleasant) blunt manner that makes me think of him as a long-time bachelor.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 3 2004 19:56 utc | 38

fran
thankful to be reminded as we need to be reminded that peopl are dying every hour of every day & that the majority of that dying(aas it always is with the oppressed)is being done by the iraqis
& we know the majority of those dying as the vietnamese before them are not even combatants
no matter how high falutin’ or tragicomic my tones i never ever forget that fact
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 3 2004 20:06 utc | 39

pat
perhaps hack is anne coulters lovedoll
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 3 2004 20:06 utc | 40

2006, Pat, because of the attrition on our side, no doubt (logistics and materiel are never a problem)…. So we’ll probably use our “secured air space” to do lots more damage to people and places on the ground (as we’ve been doing to Fallujah for months now).
Going back for a moment to Gerecht: he thinks of parochial interest-groups in Iraq as being always and only parochial. Where did he get that idea? If Saddam Hussein accomplished anything, it was the Iraq’s self-recognition as a sovereign state. This is something the neo-cons have ignored from the start, and not just from convenience, but from conviction. And where does their conviction come from? I’ll go way out on a limb on this one, and propose that they’re generalizing from their own experience in Israel. It would be Israel’s misfortune, in effect, that it never had its own Saddam Hussein to ride herd over Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Posted by: alabama | Oct 3 2004 20:41 utc | 41

@alabama
2006, not because of attrition but because our force structure cannot maintain that optempo longer.
@rgiap
I don’t think there’s enough common ground between us for a debate. I can read your thoughts and criticisms, but that’s about all.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 4 2004 0:05 utc | 42

@vbo my apologies, you have a good point about the Disappearances of Arab-American citizens, the outsourcing of torture (Extraordinary Rendition — can we spell Sonderhandlung?) etc.
from what I understand of Saddam’s reign over his fractured territory, a larger percentage of the population was subjected to disappearances, torture, arbitrary detention, theft, etc. — that is, even ethnic-majority, native-born for generations, middle class, “respectable” people lived in fear of the Ba’ath party apparatus. today, respectable people are starting to live in anxiety about the Republican Party apparatus — its mysterious No Fly lists, its grandiose plans for total surveillance, etc. — but I think the level of fear is not yet comparable to what people experience in a real dictatorship. the persecution of Arab Americans feels to me not so much like general dictatorship as a return to the pre-civil rights era of gross, blatant race hatred and discrimination. some would say that era has never ended; but whether during its heyday or its more muted modern manifestation, White middle class people could comfortably pretend that it wasn’t happening. I don’t think anyone in Iraq under Saddam could pretend that the Ba’athist repression was not happening… I could be wrong though.
at any rate I should have spoken more clearly, your point is well taken, and I do worry often about those 1200 or so Arab Americans, what has become of them, how are they being treated. one of the characteristics of a gov’t sliding into despotism is that it doesn’t like to admit its mistakes; so prisoners unjustly condemned tend to stay condemned or be put quietly out of sight and out of mind, rather than be released as an admission of officialdom’s errors. I fear for the Disappeared as much for this reason as for any other. thanks for the reminder.

Posted by: DeAnander | Oct 4 2004 0:57 utc | 43

Pat, what determines the optempo besides the build-up (or down) of troop levels and the movement of men and materiel (logistics)? Is there a pressure that’s meant to increase to the point that it can’t increase any further, and if so, does it have to decrease once it reaches that level? And if this is the case, how does it differ from “attrition”? I could use a little instruction here….

Posted by: alabama | Oct 4 2004 1:14 utc | 44

@alabama
Given the present force structure of the Army and level of commitment in Iraq, major combat units and many support units and attatched personnel are spending one year in/one year out of theater. That is an extraordinary optempo, when what one would usually aim for is one year in/two years out, or six months in/twelve months out. (The “off” time is split into halves: recovery and planning for deployment.) The one in/one out rotation schedule reduces combat effectiveness very, very quickly; one sees sharply diminishing returns in every subsequent rotation. Many units have been extended, in some cases by six months or more, beyond their one year in theater – but without a corresponding increase in recovery/prep time – which adds yet more strain.
Add to this the fact that 40% of our forces in Iraq are Reserves. This is the first time a major military operation has depended heavily upon reserve units. The reserve system, while functioning precisely as it was designed to function, has an even more difficult time bearing the strain than active duty forces.
When people speak of “breaking” the Army, it’s this unsupportable state of affairs to which they refer.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 4 2004 2:39 utc | 45

Pat, I’ve never seen this explanation in print before, and it answers about 90% of the questions about our troops and their problems raised by my readings in newspapers over the past six months.
Thank you!

Posted by: alabama | Oct 4 2004 3:29 utc | 46

Thanks everybody!
Very informative thread, indeed.
And an important addendum to the discussion, as Fran points out above, is Riverbend’s latest post which speaks to why it is imperative to come up with a workable exit strategy that will also benefit the folks on the ground.
An example is this quote on the tragedy of Friday’s carbombing which takes things way past fear and loathing into the stratosphere of incredulity:
“….That’s how bad things have gotten- we have to celebrate the reconstruction of our sewage treatment plants. I don’t know who to be more angry with- the idiots and PR people who thought it would be a good idea to have children running around during a celebration involving troops or the parents for letting their children attend.”

Posted by: RossK | Oct 4 2004 4:05 utc | 47

Making myself clear: I do not advocate a larger Army, and it would arrive anyhow too late to be of use to us. And those taken on for the job would soon be dumped – which sucks.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 4 2004 5:39 utc | 48

Samara a US and Allawi success?! Compare with this article from the TurkishPress.com.
Iraqi Sunni Muslim clerics blast “massacres” in Samarra

Posted by: Fran | Oct 4 2004 5:54 utc | 49

De Anander I know what you mean…but even tho I’ve never have been in Iraq and do not know much of the FACTS (not propaganda) of Saddam’s governing I have lived in two dictatorships and I can tell that it’s nothing like western propaganda wants you to think it looks like.
During the communisms in Eastern Europe, western propagandists wanted their people to believe that everybody in east Europe lived in deadly fear from their authoritarian leaders and governments, but it wasn’t so. Most of the people actually suffered economically, which was a crime of the kind under some dictators like Chausheskue in Romania where people were literally hungry and almost have forgotten the taste of meat for 10 years or so. Well luckily we lived under “softer” dictator Tito for 35 years. It wasn’t same all the time. It was really bad after the WWII when communists were allowed by Britain, USA and USSSR TO STEAL elections and once in power they changed laws as they were pleased so they not only confiscated and nationalized all the private property but they did killed a lot of owners of this capital and political opponents too. People couldn’t get a passports to flee and were imprisoned and tortured if they didn’t want to give –up their property. In 1948 when Tito have got the green light from USA and Britain to fuck off Stalin (Inform biro) interestingly but people who couldn’t change their attitude against loving Russians comrades over night, were imprisoned on an island in Adriatic see . and were tortured, and killed and their families were ashamed for ever…That was a time of the fear cause people still couldn’t adapt to the fact that democracy was taken away just like that. In 50-ies and 60-ies gradually living conditions became better and in 70-es Yugoslavia was the most open socialistic society in Europe. There was no anything like democracy (we had one party elections incredibly) but except a small number of intellectuals and artists not many people were involved in politics . Not everybody who was a member of “communist’s party” actually believed or even was interested in politic. People needed this membership in order to get carrier etc. They didn’t imprison people for telling a joke about Tito (like after WWII) and people did not disappear like after WWII and in 1948. Actually rock singers had songs where they pass on allusion that Tito is mafia boss (calling HIM – Al Capone) and no he wasn’t imprisoned but on the contrary he was very popular.
Under Miloshevic who definitely tried to take us back in post WWII era but just couldn’t, most of the people suffered economically too. They lost their previously secure jobs , their salaries and had to survive on a black market but mostly as small operators for Milshovec’s mafia bosses selling petrol and cigarettes etc anything profitable that was reserved for them only. Yes, there were a few victims of police violence and his “fear squad” but nothing major. Half of the people (at least) didn’t even care to vote and were occupied how to survive.
OK it’s Europe and probably the rules in Middle East are much tougher with their dictators…or maybe not? I mean they do not have interest to alienate their people. They want to be loved, you know. Not that all of them are sadistic maniacs (all tho they employ some of the kind to make examples).
OK I am O/T and it’s so bloody long.
Sorry guys. I just wanted to let you know some parameters so that you can recognize dictatorship while it’s early enough…It’s not always visible how they robe you and take your freedom from you…
Take care!

Posted by: vbo | Oct 4 2004 13:16 utc | 50

Generally where ever they are selling patriotism watch your back and your wallet, haha

Posted by: vbo | Oct 4 2004 13:19 utc | 51

From TNR:
10.04.04
BALKANIZATION: In the largest demonstration to occur in Iraq since the Sistani-inspired protests against the U.S.-backed caucus plan for picking a transitional government, hundreds of thousands of Kurds took to the streets over the weekend to demand independence. (Or, as this Kurdish report calls it in English, “self-determination.”) These protests, spread among five cities in the north, demanded the reclamation of territory for the Kurdistan Regional Government, including the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, and “correcting the unjust annexation of southern Kurdistan (Mosul Wilayet) to the newly created state of Iraq in 1925.” In his excellent New Yorker article last week, George Packer vividly detailed how much of a powder keg Kurdistan is becoming, especially over the question of Kirkuk.
But Kurdistan is not the only part of Iraq agitating for considerable distance from central authority. Officials from the (also oil-drenched) southern Shia provinces of Basra, Dhiqar, and Missan, are holding talks about exercising their right under the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) to become a Kurdistan-style superprovince (or, if you prefer, mini-state). Walid Khadduri of the Middle East Economic Survey told the Financial Times that the move could “weaken the state and lead to the eventual fragmentation of the country.” (TNR predicted this consolidation into mini-states back in March, when the TAL was approved to great fanfare by the administration.) After all, under Article 27 of the TAL, consolidated provinces can field regional armed forces “as provided by federal law.” How much control do you think this superprovince will want to cede to the weak Baghdad government over the massive amounts of oil it possesses?
posted 11:50 a.m.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 4 2004 19:23 utc | 52

It’s not just the Army that’s stretched to the limit. Phil Carter at IntelDump links to this Air Force Association article:
Too few aircraft. Lots of old ones. High cost. Breakneck pace. Trouble.
The Airlift Gap
By John A. Tirpak, Executive Editor
The airlift operation that has supported US forces in Southwest Asia over the past three years now ranks among the most extensive in history. Taken together, the efforts in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom can be put in the same general class as US airlifts to Berlin (1948-49), Israel (1973), and the Persian Gulf (1990-91). And Air Mobility Command leaders expect no letup for at least another 18 months.
At the same time, the Air Force faces an acute airlift shortfall. The capability of the fleet used in the 2003 Iraq War was well short of requirement; the gap was at least 10 million ton miles per day. Today, AMC leaders say, the gap is wider—at least 15 MTM/D, perhaps 22 MTM/D.
A series of analyses and inspections now being performed will help set the nation’s true airlift requirement and possibly pave the way for what may have to be a large new investment in transports.
“Our folks, across the mobility fleet and AMC, have been at an incredibly high, record-setting pace,” said Gen. John W. Handy, the commander of both AMC and US Transportation Command. “We’ve never seen the sorties that we’re generating right now.”
In July, Handy reported that AMC was mounting between 450 and 500 sorties a day, as compared to what had been a post-Sept. 11 level of about 400 missions a day. And that, in itself, marked a major spike in operations.
That Was Then …
“If you go back 12 years, when I was a one-star, … 250 missions a day was average,” said Handy, who has spent most of his 38 active duty years in the airlift business. “We thought we were pretty busy, and, for that time, we were busy.”
Now, Handy noted, “we have doubled what we thought was a significant mission load. As I look to the near term, I don’t see that [requirement] changing dramatically. I think the airlift situation is going to be under considerable strain. … It’s not going to get any better.”
Handy gave a candid and detailed assessment of today’s mobility status first in an interview with Air Force Magazine and then later in a larger discussion with military reporters in Washington, D.C.
He said that Air Force mobility forces, even as they carry out the resupply of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, continue to support other theater combatant commanders who have their own exercises, redeployments, and contingencies to cope with.
It all adds up to an airlift fleet that is too small to carry the load and personnel who cannot maintain a breakneck pace forever.[…]

Posted by: Pat | Oct 4 2004 21:00 utc | 53

Okay, Pat, let’s see: is a “sortie” a one-way flight? Is a “mission” a round-trip flight? Or are these aggregates of MTM/D? In any event, it seems that a plane’s life-span is being cut in half, and so the bill will fall due….in 2010? It’s certainly not being subsidized by that $10 billion per year going to M.D.A. (as reported by Frances Fitzgerald in the current NYer). What fools we mortals be!
It all reminds me of an article in the WSJ last month about Sgt. John McCary, an intelligence soldier, fluent in Arabic, who ends up interrogating eight-year-old children in the middle of a warzone. What’s this “rara avis” doing in such a dangerous place–given the fact that maybe fifty soldiers in Iraq have his skill-set? Answer: the army can’t function without putting him on the front–a front that no one ever dreamed of before. IOF feels far, far crazier than Viet Nam ever did–much, much more stupidly wasteful.

Posted by: alabama | Oct 5 2004 3:09 utc | 54

@alabama
I believe “sortie” and “mission” are interchangable here, and round trip.
Is Fitzgerald’s article in the OCT 4 edition? I couldn’t find it at the NYer website.
But while searching around the net I found this, from a Salon.com article describing the changes Tina Brown made at the NYer:
The New Yorker lost many admirers in those years, and most of them it has not gained back. “There was a time in my life when the New Yorker made a difference,” says Barbara Ehrenreich, the journalist and Time magazine essayist. “I can remember, to give just one example, when my father read Frances Fitzgerald’s ‘Fire in the Lake’ in the New Yorker in the 1960s. That writing literally changed his mind about Vietnam. There are no articles like that in the New Yorker today.”
[I’ve never heard of Fitzgerald, but now I’m curious enough to hunt down ‘Fire in the Lake.]

Posted by: Pat | Oct 5 2004 4:09 utc | 55

She’s your soul-mate, Pat. She’s been writing for forty years on lots of different things, always in a lucid and patient manner, and with an extraordinary gift for clarifying complex issues. (Her father, Desmond Fitzgerald, was a celebrated analyst for the CIA in its early days; her mother, Marietta Tree, was a great friend of Adlai Stevenson and a powerhouse in the Democratic Party).
The piece in the NYer is the lead piece for “The Talk of the Town”. It’s called “Indefensible”. It’s funny, scary and enraging. Its last sentence: “This spring, forty-nine retired generals and admirals called upon the President to put off the deployment and to transfer the funds to the securing of nuclear facilities and the protection of American ports and borders against the far more immediate danger of Al Qaeda, rather than pursue a system that may never work against a threat that doesn’t now exist.”

Posted by: alabama | Oct 5 2004 4:34 utc | 56

@alabama
I couldn’t find a reprint of the 1960s NYer article on the net, but fortunately the article gave rise to, or was taken from, the very highly praised book, “Lake of Fire.” I just ordered it and should have it by Friday. Thank you, very much, for pointing her out to me. Now I’ll see once again if I can find her current Talk of the Town piece.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 5 2004 5:32 utc | 57

Hi, alabama and Pat.
Just catching up on the conversation … and I’m trying to figure out what time the postings say vs. the time here
Looks like the timestamps on posts are Greenwich time, 7 hours ahead of Pacific Daylight Savings Time here on the foggy coast.
So thanks for the continued flow. G’nite.

Posted by: jonku | Oct 5 2004 7:26 utc | 58

Will someone delete this spam above, please.

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Nov 7 2004 15:41 utc | 59

@Kate – done

Posted by: b | Nov 7 2004 15:58 utc | 60

im here listening to steve earle while reading walter benjamin
what a fine sentence, rgiap.

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 7 2004 16:29 utc | 61

Thanks, b.

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Nov 7 2004 17:49 utc | 62