“We are coming in harder”

December 13, 2006

There is lots of smoke and mirrors about the future strategy in Iraq. For now the Baker/Hamilton report’s suggestion to draw down troops will not be followed. Unless the Dems decide to use budget power to enforce it which, for now, looks unlikely.

Today there is quite a media charge for additional troops in Iraq. It is hard to find out who is driving this spin, but it seems to be the White House and Rumsfeld allies in uniform using his last days in the Pentagon to advance some general goals.

Also interesting is a split showing within the military leadership (Page versus Abizadh?) which might have some consequences when Gates, the wild card in this game, takes over as DoD boss.

The LA Times: Pentagon’s plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.
…

The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). But the Pentagon proposals add several features, including the confrontation with Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military.

Such an option would appear to satisfy Bush’s demand for a strategy focused on victory rather than disengagement.

Forget the job program – it is three and a half years to late for that. The long term increase in military strength is, of course, always the demand of any military hierarchy. Al Anbar is lost and the Marines have declared that to be so some time ago. Which leaves as the only serious point the fight with Al-Sadr.

The media build up against him was visible for some month already. He was portrayed as "radical" and "anti-American" in about any Iraq piece one could find. Compare that with the media’s quiet fondness for al-Hakim, the boss of SCIRI. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq is not a radical organisation? Al-Hakim, the decades long Iran resident and cleric, is pro-American?

The difference between al-Sadr and al-Hakim is: a. the former is an Iraqi nationalist, while the later wants to split Iraq and b. al-Sadr is a real "social compassionate conservative", while al-Hakim is a "bazaari", a ruling class deal maker. Both differences make al-Hakim preferable to the U.S. administration. Now al-Hakim has to be brought to power.

"I think it is worth trying," a defense official said. "But you can’t
have the rhetoric without the resources. This is a double down"

Such a proposal, military officials and experts caution, would be a gamble. Any chance of success probably would require major changes in the Iraqi government, they said. U.S. Embassy officials would have to help usher into power a new coalition in Baghdad that was willing to confront the militias.

[…]
The size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required, but other officials said such a number was unrealistic.

[…]
An increase in U.S. forces is not universally popular in the military. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, has long argued that increasing the size of the force would be counterproductive, angering the very people the U.S. was trying to help.

[…]
Military officers believe a confrontation with Sadr is inevitable. Bob Killebrew, a retired colonel and defense strategist, said the U.S. military had four to six months to take on Sadr, whose Al Mahdi militia is growing faster than the Iraqi army.

"We have to deal somehow with the militias, and Sadr in particular; he is rapidly becoming the armed power in Iraq," Killebrew said.

But the resources are not only troops. Khalizad is leaving his position as ambassador in Iraq at the end of this year. Can a pale career diplomat like Ryan Crocker get an emergency political deal in Baghdad done? That very important question is currently avoided.

An AP piece extends the military/political questions:

Abizaid has told the Senate Armed Services Committee that troop levels in Iraq need to stay fairly stable and the use of military adviser teams expanded. About 140,000 U.S. troops and about 5,000 advisers are in Iraq.

The message to Bush, the defense specialist said, is that the U.S. cannot withdraw a substantial number of combat troops by early 2008, as suggested by an independent, bipartisan commission on Iraq, because the Iraqis will not be ready to assume control of their country.

[…]
Bush’s discussions across Iraq’s ethnic and religious lines come as major partners in the country’s governing coalition are in behind-the-scenes talks to form a new parliamentary bloc and sideline supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a vehement opponent of the U.S. military presence and the main patron of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. There is discontent in Iraq and within the Bush administration over al-Maliki’s failure to rein in Shiite militias and quell raging violence.

The White House has tried to maintain distance from the political storm brewing inside Iraq. [Is the AP writer joking here? b.]

Iraqi leaders have different ideas anyway:

Iraq has presented the United States with a plan that calls for Iraqi troops to assume primary responsibility for security in Baghdad early next year. American troops would be shifted to the periphery of the capital.

[…]
In response to the Iraqi demands for control, the American military command in Baghdad has also been developing its own plan, which comes with conditions that must be met before control is handed over, according to American officials in Baghdad who asked to remain unidentified because the plan is not final.

So the Iraqi plan goes nowhere – the U.S. will firmly stay the course and, even better, double down and seek the confrontation with al-Sadr.

This is not going to be a fair match. It is going to be a desaster.

Al-Sadr will play it like Hizbullah, lay low, take your time, be patient, very patient and exploit any weakness your enemy might show. Even if the U.S. tears down Sadr city – those 2.5 million people will not give up but fight – all of them. At the same time the Sadr folks sitting on the U.S. lines-of-communication will not stay idle either. The 40,000 additional troops one officer above requested would not be sufficient to seriously dent al-Sadr’s force. The more realistic available 20,000 additional troops will hardly be a drop in the bucket if the fighting really starts.

But this does not matter – it is not about that at all. LAT cites one of the Pentagon’s perfumed princes who has clearly shared the kool-aid with Bush himself:

"I’ve come to the realization we need to go in, in a big way," said an Army officer. "You have to have an increase in troops…. We have to convince the enemy we are serious and we are coming in harder."

It is really time for someone to cut that guy’s Dick off.

Posted by b on December 13, 2006 at 20:38 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Youtube vid of Behind the scenes of the Bush – al Hakim photo op part 2 – Cheney looking on (looking grim)

Footage of White House photo op with President Bush and Iraqi Shiite leader Sayyed Abdul Aziz al Hakim. The footage shows cut-away shots of Bush while the Iraqi is talking as well as others in the Oval Office, including Vice President Cheney and the herd of photojournalists.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 13 2006 20:46 utc | 1

years ago, an older Italian friend of mine told me that the Americans made a big mistake when they invaded Iraq. He wasn’t bothered so much by the illegality of the invasion nor even the plundering and looting that accompanied it. He said that the US did not act decisively enough, that the Iraqis had to be completely crushed so there would be no resistance. Although this sounds like Genghis Kahn tactics, there is a certain logic to it. If you are going to rob someone you might as well kill his sons and burn what you can’t carry away. That way you don’t have to worry about revenge for a while as he will have nothing left to fight for.
so now the US finds that their only face saving option is to destroy what is left of Iraq. the fvcking oil is so important that we have to do this to other people.
So where’s the moral
when people have their fingers broken
To be insulted by these fascists
it’s so degrading
And it’s no game

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 13 2006 21:32 utc | 2

@1: Cheney looking grim…
That’s just the way Cheney looks. Always. He only has one facial expression.
Bush looks like a schoolboy waiting impatiently for the bell to ring so he can run home and watch Gilligan’s Island reruns on TV.

Posted by: Scott | Dec 13 2006 21:40 utc | 3

@3,
That was my impression too. Impatient, eyelids threatening to close, bored. A bit different from his usual body posture in these photo ops with foreign leaders, to wit, sitting as if he were taking a shit, legs apart, forearms on knees. Telling.

Posted by: Hamburger | Dec 13 2006 22:00 utc | 4

Posted by: Hamburger | Dec 13 2006 22:00 utc | 5

Hey! dunno how that happened. Hit “post” once only. I swear.

Posted by: Hamburger | Dec 13 2006 22:01 utc | 6

For some reason I feel obliged to note…
My intent was not to take away from b’s fine post here, I merely thought it would supplement and enhance the post for obvious reasons.
The ideal for one final push is quite absurd, however that hasn’t stopped them in these six or seven years, they evidently have some kind of reason unbeknownst to the public, of course. As these nefarious fucks do nothing that does not benefit them in some degree.
Perhaps it is to shore up the permanent bases? As we know, rather than speak of “permanent bases,” the military prefer’s to speak coyly of “permanent access” to Iraq, like some kind of kept sex slave. Bootie calls when it strikes they’re fancy.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 13 2006 23:39 utc | 7

The supreme duty of a state is to preserve itself, therefore all measures will be taken so that not only the physical presence but particularly the apparent glory of a state are maintained. States do the most remarkable turnabouts in order to persist. Do you remember Lenin’s New Economic Policy that reversed the wholesale destruction of the Russian economy? Our intervention in Iraq was based on the ethical position, that is the commercial perception, that considers a soldier as an expense and on the other hand a capital “good” as an investment. Now that ethical basis has been found to be wanting so the authorities have to reverse course and begin to use soldiers. Besides that, the aims of the invasion have been reduced to the possession of Baghdad. While Baghdad is in our hands the victory is always possible.Probable?

Posted by: jlcg | Dec 13 2006 23:55 utc | 8

the Iraq war has become very unpopular with the top military brass (ref. Murtha). And what better way to try to convince GWB of reality than to give him a final-push or double-down. If it works, great ! If not, its one less option GWB/neocons/hawks can call for as the inevitable and unforgiving grip of reality takes hold.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Dec 14 2006 1:27 utc | 9

Seems Congress, too, has had enough and is starting to mutiny.
AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis sees this development this way:

We’re witnessing an intervention. And it ain’t gonna be pretty. Someone just became the un-president.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 14 2006 4:23 utc | 10

The joint chief do not want to double down.
Joint Chiefs Advise Change In War Strategy

The nation’s top uniformed leaders are recommending that the United States change its main military mission in Iraq from combating insurgents to supporting Iraqi troops and hunting terrorists, said sources familiar with the White House’s ongoing Iraq policy review.
…
The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq, said sources familiar with their thinking, but see strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to achieving some degree of stability. They also are pressing for a much greater U.S. effort on economic reconstruction and political reconciliation.
Sources said that Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is reviewing a plan to redefine the American military mission there: U.S. troops would be pulled out of Iraqi cities and consolidated at a handful of U.S. bases while day-to-day combat duty would be turned over to the Iraqi army. Casey is still considering whether to request more troops, possibly as part of an expanded training mission to help strengthen the Iraqi army.
…
In northern and western Iraq, U.S. commanders are already moving troops out of combat missions to place them as advisers with lower-level Iraqi army units, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, spokesman for the military in Iraq, said yesterday at a briefing in Baghdad.
Administration officials stressed that Bush, under pressure from Congress and the electorate to abandon the United States’ open-ended commitment, has made no final decisions on how to proceed in Iraq. But the new disclosures suggest that military planning is well underway for a major change from an approach that has assigned the bulk of responsibility for security in Iraq to more than 140,000 U.S. troops.

So has Bush decided, or is the militray doing this on their own will? That indeed would be a kind of mutiny. Who were the double down guys who talked to the LA Times?

Posted by: b | Dec 14 2006 7:45 utc | 11

b:
The LATimes quotes “officials”, 11 times on their first page. One vague reference to “some officers”. I imagine Douglas Feith was a Defense Department Official.

“I think it is worth trying,” a defense official said. “But you can’t have the rhetoric without the resources. This is a double down” — the gambling term for upping a bet.

Your link to the Washington Post quotes “uniformed leaders”.
In the “old days” newspapers elucidated rather than obfuscated.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 14 2006 9:23 utc | 12

I think the commanders in Iraq have by now decided how to use their soldiers and connections in Iraq to do what they think is right.
Their goal must be stability since they and their armies are there until someone lets them come home. So that doesn’t seem likely.
Building a useful Iraqi police and army must be their top priority. Sunni or Shia, they don’t care. If stability comes at the price of ethnic cleansing, that would be ok. So I think that the military just wants to see the most likely, most powerful group or coalition become dominant.
At a lesser level the commanders might pay some attention to local politics and US politics.
These commanders report to the brass in Washington. That is one strong voice heard in the capitol, the most informed abouta immediate reality and achievable short term goals.
Their superiors are responsible to the civilian government which has its own strong voices. I am watching a similar spectacle here in Canada with respect to the 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Posted by: jonku | Dec 14 2006 10:21 utc | 13

McClatchy’s Galloway: Bush’s ‘new way forward’ is into quicksand

What will happen if everything that George Bush does to string things along in Iraq fails, as has everything else he’s done there so far, and the Iraqis ask, order or drive us out of their country?
Did you notice that at every stop on the President’s information-gathering tour this week, there was a very familiar face looming over his shoulder? There was Vice President Dick Cheney, looking as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
Should the president suddenly have an original thought or seem to be going wobbly, Cheney will be right there to squelch it or to set him straight.
It can be argued that George W. Bush understood little about war and peace and diplomacy and honesty in government. Cheney understood all of it, and he bears much of the responsibility for what’s gone on in Washington, D.C. and in Iraq for the last six years. Keep a sharp eye on him. Desperate men do desperate things.

Posted by: b | Dec 14 2006 10:44 utc | 14

Anatole Lieven, The Way to Iraq is through Iran, FT, 12 Dec 06:

It is pointless, however, to aim at any such goal as long as competing groups in the US administration play with radically incompatible ideas of either unrestricted backing for the Iraqi Shia against the Sunni, or creating an anti-Iranian and anti-Shia bloc of Sunni autocratic regimes in the region, led by Saudi Arabia. Either strategy would point directly towards a full-scale Iraqi civil war with Saudi Arabia and Iran ranged on opposite sides and Syria catastrophically divided.

At the moment the US is one militia among many in Iraq – altho’ there may be 150,000 US “troops” there, only US 25,000 troops are actually in the field – the rest is support staff. Not forgetting, of course, the 5,000 “advisors” ensconsed in the Elizabeth Cheney Rest Home for Deluded MBAs (aka the Green Zone).
To have a significant impact, the nos. of US troops in the field would have to be increased substantially, which would mean increasing support services in tandem. US KIAs, MIAs and wounded would also increase expontentially.
If 90% of a population of 20m+ wants you out, how many troops do you have “reinvade” with to “win”?
Although as we speak Kevin Costner and slothrop are filing out the paperwork to join up for the “double down”, so who knows, it could work.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Dec 14 2006 13:28 utc | 15

Heh, in the spring the Taliban will take Kandahar. They are practically there already. Khalizad surely know this, so has to scoot, Karzai as well, that is why he weeps. The ‘Taliban’ might actually throw NATO out, it is not at all unimaginable. Though if NATO decides to stay, they can: they just sit in their bases, bored to tears, doing things we will not mention to each other.
They can bomb, of course. And do. But to what purpose?
From the BBC, in 2005:
Nato’s very public announcement on 8 December that it will send an additional 6,000 troops to Taleban-infested southern Afghanistan next spring and Washington’s more cryptic remarks that it wants to withdraw 4,000 troops from the same region at the same time are being read very differently by all those affected. (!!)
link
From the INRA, Dec. 2006:
Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt warned of the imminent collapse of the NATO-led military mission in war-stricken Afghanistan. The development in Afghanistan is “predictably chaotic”, Schmidt told the Berlin-based Der Tagesspiegel in a report made available ahead of Sunday’s publication. The former German leader … added that Afghanistan was “ungovernable.” .. NATO’s 33,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) finds it increasingly difficult to suppress the resurgent Taliban militia.
link
From the ground, Dec. 13, 2006, Asia Times:
In the plains of southwestern Afghanistan, confident Taliban move around openly with their weaponry, to the frustration of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Afghan National Army (ANA)…
link

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 14 2006 16:34 utc | 16

INRA link, correction:
link

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 14 2006 16:37 utc | 17

This can’t be stated often enough, so here goes. Iraq is not a ‘war’. The US invaded, knowing there would no resistance, and then occupied the country. It is an occupation, not a war.
Occupation requires control, domination, organization. When the occupier has to fight what it now lamely calls “war”, that is, battle against contra-occupation groups, militias, or subversive elements, it has already lost, unless these are very circumscribed, delimitated, known, marginal, insignificant, and despised by the population at large.
Control, domination in the ‘occupation’ situation does not require a huge number of troops (one can quarrel about the numbers), or at a certain point, ‘more troops’ will not help.
Some might say the old models don’t fit, which is true enough; but is this 4 th or N th generation warfare? Well if one defines it so, certainly. But how can an occupier control if he only wants to fight “war”?
The only way the occupier can win is by total genocide, and then he loses as well, because of modern weapons (DU, etc.) and the total destruction required.
The USuk’s weird model is a hybrid between ‘war’ and its hyped favorable aftermath, inherited from ww2; ‘colonialisation,’ dreams of dead Indians and virgin territory, Brits ruling the waves; and ‘economic control’, or rather gangsterism, successful in part in the past and today. All that can’t be distilled into a ‘win’, it is impossible.
Coming in harder is thus an admission of defeat.

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 14 2006 17:39 utc | 18

b –
When I read the chopped version of the LA Times story in my local paper yesterday morning, my jaw literally dropped. One thing I do expect from the actual military is a degree of realism about the military facts and possibilities. Not so much in policy and politics, but in actual military options and feasibility, and esp. from the Army, which has the most soldiers lives to account for. Now here was a plan which incorporated the outrageous and the impossible, already demonstrated.
1) Control Anbar – US has tried this every which way and up already. Even near-total destruction of Fallujah did not work.
2) Change the Iraqi govt to one more favorable to US activities. Presumably referring to some sort of coup. Forget the years of PR about US enabling democracy.
3) Add 40K troops – US doesn’t have 40K troops to add unless it stops rotating forces, leaves troops there indefinitely, and gives up “force projections” elsewhere in the world.
4) Solve the shortfall of soldiers by increasing the size of military longterm. – Most military officers don’t favor a draft. And almost everyone agrees that the only way to accomplish a significant expansion of military is a draft. Just the attempt to restart a draft is guaranteed to rouse US public sentiment against the war to a fever. A political non-starter.
5) Confront and eliminate Sadr and his forces. – Seemingly the most effective and feared force in Iraq. US hasn’t been trying to do this in every possible way since it arrived in Baghdad? Someone has a new strategy for how this would be accomplished?
6) No limit or deadlines on the renewed campaign or on how long US forces would have to remain in Iraq. And a note that a serious commitment of “resources” would be necessary.
What were the leakers smoking? Their recommendation seemed to contradict everything we have been hearing from generals, retired generals, and other military sources. How to explain such an pyrrhic plan? The story did note that, when Gates arrives officially at Pentagon, he might ask for a new reading.
The only theory I could imagine was the tasking. Someone at Pentagon was tasked to propose a strategy for “victory”. The response is really a warning. As if saying, “Is this really what you want? The outcome you seek cannot be achieved. But you can do a lot of damage, waste plenty of lives and $ trying.”
Now seeing the WaPo story that b notes today, I like JFL’s hypothesis @ #12 better. Feith has been smoking something ever since he arrived at the Pentagon, a lifetime habit apparently.

Posted by: small coke | Dec 14 2006 18:01 utc | 19

al mahdi weighs in

the central point seems to be: Opposition to any structural concessions to the Sunni resistance as a way of ending their insurgency, and in particular opposition to any tinkering with the results of the October 11 federalism vote.
ratcheting up the speed of federalism

Posted by: annie | Dec 14 2006 20:17 utc | 20

Noirette wrote:
Control, domination in the ‘occupation’ situation does not require a huge number of troops (one can quarrel about the numbers), or at a certain point, ‘more troops’ will not help.
That is why State Dept. & Shinsecki were adamant that they needed 500,000 at the outset. I heard interview w/knowledgeable source. If you do not completely cow population into submission at the outset, you have lost. They’ve long since calculated how many occupying troops/citizen that requires. It may not work, given this is Iraq, not some young upstart nation, but once the victim realizes they can successfully fight back, then it doesn’t matter how many troops you send in – toothpaste doesn’t go back in the tube…
That said, there were so many competing agendas of what they wanted to accomplish that who the hell knows if this is the outcome \they wanted or not. I think they wanted Civil War, to justify continued occupation(bases) & splitting the country so it’ll never be powerful again, & massive destruction as warning to other ME countries not to resist their neo-imperialist Plunder By Treaty agenda.

Posted by: jj | Dec 14 2006 20:44 utc | 21

but jj, of course they didn’t need the troops Shinseki said they did…the liberators were going to be greeted with praise and flowers and Chalabi would be installed as the U.S. puppet seated on the right hand…or laps…dunno… of the U. of Chicago alumni cheering squad chickenhawks who were “creating reality.”
The entire “operation” (sic, really) was going to take a few months, at most, as they are on record (via new show tapes) as having said.
It’s not just Iraq that these assholes fucked up, as noted above. Afghanistan remained unstable, bin Laden was allowed to stay hidden to maintain a bogeyman, no American was asked to do anything for the so-called war on terror (now not) except go shopping. I remember Bush saying that so well. sick.
9-11 could have changed everything by focusing on what Americans could do to create more energy independence, less consumption, and a little bit of understanding of the role the U.S. has played in the ME for decades before deciding how to address the current issues…but that, of course, is “traitorous.”

Posted by: fauxreal | Dec 14 2006 21:16 utc | 22

Coming in down hard…
Before Krugman there was Robert Higgs: The Major Themes of Crisis and Leviathan

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 14 2006 22:47 utc | 23

coke:
Feith himself has gone on to indoctrination exercises for Anna Missed’s Catholic compradors at Georgetown, but I’m sure there are still plenty of “political appointees” at the Pentagon who can whip up words on any subject on demand, between group hates at the Xtian Embassy.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 14 2006 23:07 utc | 24

faux:
9-11 could have changed everything by focusing on what Americans could do to create more energy independence, less consumption, and a little bit of understanding of the role the U.S. has played in the ME for decades before deciding how to address the current issues…but that, of course, is “traitorous.”
Oh boy. You bring me back to the time between 9/11 and XLIII’s speech, laying out what is in fact the Neocon agenda.
I thought the pause between the two signalled real asessment, the steeling of real resolve, to take hold of our nation, stop its disastrous drift at home and abroad, to boldly reorder our foreign policy, to put things right. So that those who died on 9/11 would not have died in vain.
So very, very many have died in vain since then. The nation which could have pulled itself up by its socks in 2001 has consciously degenerated into an aged empire, just in time to fall of the imperial edge, led by its own little Nero.
You know, at any minute things could yet be put right.
The Congress has the power to do so.
All it would require would be for one, two, a half-dozen of the Republicrats and Demoplicans to stop taking their meds, stand up on their hind legs, announce what we all know to be true, and we do all know it to be true, and begin the forced march back to humanity.
After 9/11 one person could have strode out to the podium and given a speech that would have set us all in motion down the path to recovery. That’s what the script called for.
Now two to six people could issue that clarion call. More easily now because we have such a glaring, negative example, such a massive, mocking death’s skull grinning at us from the other side.
It is not the “great man or woman theory” of history I’m talking about here, it is simply recognition of the fact that the air in this present, fantastic realm is supersaturated with reality. Two to six ordinary mortals, discovering themselves in the seats of power, could act as determined nuclei, could turn our darkest night to shimmering, crystalline day.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 15 2006 0:27 utc | 25

JFL: things could have been done better, things could still be improved.
We’ll soon see, in fact. Because the sure sign of a failing and senile empire is the succession of bad leaders, one awful after the other, without much remission – if the US can’t pick anyone else than opportunists, crooks and idiots, then the end shouldn’t be far.
So, sure, things could be better. Things may have even been better if the US people hadn’t been mostly a bunch of stupid morons in 2000, 2002 and 2004 (well, before as well, I guess). They still could do the right thing, pick decent leaders, if they wanted to. But do they want to? Do they want to be lifted from their atrocious ignorance, utter lunacy, do they want to tear down the wall of superstitions that cover most of the nation, are they ready to act like adults? If they are, then things can improve. If the majority isn’t ready, then it’ll be a clone of Dick Cheney or Dan Quayle who’ll win in 2008, and the whole thing will be over.
I don’t know if Lind’s last article has been posted in some previous OT thread, so here it is.
The money quote and big reason not to go to Iran (not to go to Iraq to begin with):
If the U.S. were to lose the army it has in Iraq, the world would change. It would be our Adrianople, our Rocroi, our Stalingrad. American power and prestige would never recover.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Dec 15 2006 8:40 utc | 26

“You know, at any minute things could yet be put right.
The Congress has the power to do so.”
made me laugh out loud. sorry.

Posted by: gmac | Dec 15 2006 10:20 utc | 27

it is simply recognition of the fact that the air in this present, fantastic realm is supersaturated with reality. Two to six ordinary mortals, discovering themselves in the seats of power, could act as determined nuclei, could turn our darkest night to shimmering, crystalline day.
a beautiful thought john francis lee, beautiful indeed.
i’m afraid for iraq there are no chances in the near future for any crystaline days no matter what we do, unless by crystal you mean crystal clear.
here’s to hope and wishes for ordinary mortals finding some courage today.

Posted by: annie | Dec 15 2006 11:12 utc | 28

Juan Cole has poor Tim Johnson dead and buried already. But his point is well taken. The idea of “40,000” more troops sent to Iraq has wound him up tight:
How the Republicans are Stealing the November Elections Or, Bushes and Bonapartes

Bush is the Napoleon of our age, trampling on whole peoples, a Jacobin Emperor mouthing the slogans of liberty and popular sovereignty while crushing and looting those he “liberated.” And Kagan and Kristol (playing Talleyrand 1798) and Emperor Bush are readying a further slaughter of our US troops, 24,000 of whom have been killed or wounded, and of innocent Iraqis, 600,000 of whom have been killed by criminal and political violence since spring of 2003.
And you thought a mere election would make a difference. No one had to elect the American Enterprise Institute. No one needs to crown the emperor, he can do it himself. Welcome to Year 1 of the Empire.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 15 2006 11:32 utc | 29

gmac :
I agree that it’s unlikely. But it is possible. Whether we have yet fallen into the pit of fashionable despair or not.
annie :
The moment in which we took responsibilty for our actions would be a moment of crystal clarity. And then the journey of a thousand miles. But the first step is the hardest. And, of course, the one that must be taken before the others.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 15 2006 11:40 utc | 30

JFL et al:
Do you suppose the determination to stop that clarion call from being issued might explain this or this? (On the second link, scroll down to the YouTube of CNN’s Jeff Greenfield posted 12/14. This is a longish segment but the key part is at the end, so it’s critical to watch the whole thing.)
These really made me angry.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 15 2006 14:47 utc | 31

Rice Rules Out Talking to Iran, Syria, or Much Policy Change at All

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday rejected a bipartisan panel’s recommendation that the United States seek the help of Syria and Iran in Iraq, saying the “compensation” required by any deal might be too high. She argued that neither country should need incentives to foster stability in Iraq….
Rice also said there would be no retreat from the administration’s push to promote democracy in the Middle East, a goal that was de-emphasized by the Iraq Study Group in its report last week but that Rice insisted was a “matter of strategic interest.” She reiterated her commitment to pursuing peace between Palestinians and Israelis — a new effort that President Bush announced in September but that has yielded little so far.
“Get ready. We are going to the Middle East a lot,” Rice said.
Rice’s remarks indicated that, despite a maelstrom of criticism of Bush’s policies by outside experts and Democrats, the administration’s extensive review of policy in Iraq and the region will not yield major changes in its approach. Rice said that Bush could be “quite expansive” in terms of a policy review and that the new plan would be a “departure.” But the president will not radically change any of his long-term goals or commitment to Iraq, she said.
Indeed, Rice argued that the Middle East is being rearranged in ways that provide the United States with new opportunities, what she repeatedly called a “new strategic context.”

“Rearranged.” Yup. That’s what we’re up to. “Rearranging.”

Posted by: Bea | Dec 15 2006 15:29 utc | 32

Map of the de facto partition of Baghdad that is taking place along sectarian lines.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 15 2006 15:56 utc | 33

I don’t know which is more distasteful, the infotainment joking approach to mass murder, or the obvious play to xenophobia by the mass media and its casual linking of Osama and Obama.
But, believe me, talking truth through the media would only throw this into bald relief. These bastards get away with this stuff because no one stands up to them. The Demoplican answer will be to try and get Obama to change his name. Or to admit that, yeah, anybody with a name like that might be a terrorist. Hell, Rahm Emanuel might have put Blitzer up to it. Notice how his “weird” name is not linked to Ramadan.
Don’t get mad get even.
If a half dozen Representatives held a news conference announcing that they were going to work to end funding the Iraq war because it was and is sick and wrong, if they announced that as well they were going to end funding of the sacrosanct settlement subsidies that Israel has hitherto felt “entitled” to because they were in the interests of neither the Israeli nor American people, if they made the obvious case that American support for injustice in the Middle East made possible the murderous acts that made Osama a household name, and that “our” politiicans’ largess had not only reduced the Palestinians to a state as shameful as Auschwitz, making up in duration what it lacked in intensity, but as well had reduced the Israeli nation to a not so pale imitation of the Third Reich itself, then there would no longer be room for such malign foolishness on this or any other infotainment channel.
The divergence of TV from reality is so extreme that even an utterly dishonest politician who cares for naught but her own reptilian hide will eventually notice and make a play on it.
As long as its all a big joke those who control the media get to play the stand ups and control the action. Until some one stands up, as the guys in Michael Richards’ audience did and say “Hey, what you’re saying is not only distasteful and prejudicial, it is insulting to our intelligence for you to even try to pass that stuff off on us.”
A heavy dose of the truth would let these guys know that they have brought their sharp knives to a gun fight.
And the American people are just about fed up enough right now to enjoy the taste of red meat. The hard part would be to make sure the rage was directed right where it should be and not just played into the same game in reverse.
Those are the first clips of American TV I’ve seen in quite sometime and I’ll make them my last thank you.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 15 2006 16:12 utc | 34

and I’ll make them my last thank you.
Can’t say as I blame you.
Notice they completely omitted the similarity between his first name and that of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Naw, that was just unmentionable.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 15 2006 16:32 utc | 35

And the American people are just about fed up enough right now to enjoy the taste of red meat.
JFL, I hate to disillusion you, but the American people are too preoccupied with TomKat, the Olsen twins, Brittany’s wild “I’m a free woman now!” romps with Paris “it’s all about me!” Hilton, and neverending Christmas shopping to even care, let alone feel fed up.
I fear your faith in our society to correct itself is sorely misplaced. Would that I be proven wrong.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 15 2006 16:37 utc | 36

bea:
If that’s all that’s on TV then that’s what people will “watch”. In the land of the trivializers the trivialest is king. But people know that is all crap. They know things are way out of kilter. The response to “the real thing” would be immediate and overwhelming.
The people are suffering from reduced, non-existent?, expectations. The fault lies not with the audience but with the performers. If nothing else even a merely vain actor will be too proud to “star” in a b reel.
If what you say is true, if non-expectancy seems comfortable and sufficient even now in the face of murder for its own sake, then I do look forward to the coming economic crash as a fate less-worse than death.
For it is surely hastened with each successive $100 billion borrowed and burned before the Golden Calf in the heathen holocaust in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, and will be upon us if the Wars are allowed to continue.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 15 2006 17:17 utc | 37

US residents and those with relatives in the States, pay heed to the Armed Forces’ most recent manual on Urban Operations. Article should be read in its entirety so I will not excerpt.

Posted by: DeAnander | Dec 15 2006 21:04 utc | 38

Re: DeAnander’s link (Post 38):
The scenario is terrifying. I just want to scream. Every single American should be protesting in the streets. Such Apathy is hard to believe.
This article correlates with B’s new Thread for today: “The Purpose of Life”

Posted by: RIck Happ | Dec 15 2006 21:51 utc | 39

A little more from the link at 38

Taking a cue from Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, “Urban Operations” recommends that Soldiers use sports stadiums as interrogation centers and holding facilities for the disgruntled masses.
As a final warning, Soldiers are reminded that video only has one-way benefits: “[N]egative visual images of military operations presented by the media can change political objectives. . . . Commanders should . . . induce cooperation between the media and Army forces . . . successfully engaging the media as a force multiplier.“

No doubt Canukistanian “peacekeepers” have the same manual and Pigochet reaches out from the grave. Maybe Buffy should have staked him.

Posted by: gmac | Dec 15 2006 22:21 utc | 40

if the dollar has a hard landing the inner city, as usual, will suffer the most.
this planning sounds like an extension of Ollie North’s Reagan-era planning for internment of blacks in case of a “race riot.”
if nothing else, the right wing has the most thorough American-hating paranoid planning teams of any other group, including those sequestered in cabins in North Dakota hoarding firearms and beef jerky.

Posted by: fauxreal | Dec 16 2006 1:18 utc | 41

China trade talks end in “vague assurances”

Paulson balked when asked to outline concrete results of the dialogue.
“If you want immediate results, then it’s not realistic. It’s going to be relatively modest things,” he said, adding later, “Time will tell.”
He noted that China agreed to let the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ exchange open offices here without further formalities.

Translation : The Chinese are going to wait for the dollar to crash and then use their $1 TRILLION to buy up US assets, since the US will be the only place the dollar will have any value at all. The Treasury Secretary from Goldman Sachs understands, and is making it more convenient for the Chinese to do so by opening branches of the US exchanges in China. As well as for Goldman Sachs, which makes money on both sides of the deal.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 17 2006 2:22 utc | 42

I don’t think this has been posted here yet, and if it has, I apologize. But I just read a very comprehensive, sweeping assessment of the US geostrategic quagmire in Asia Times, and I highly recommend it. The author, W Joseph Stroupe, Editor in Chief of Global Strategy Magazine (www.geostrategymap.com), makes it crystal clear that the US election is essentially worthless insofar as placing restraints on US foreign policy go, and he argues convincingly that military action against Iran is more likely than not. He also just looks at the entire regional and global context in great detail.
~Snip

Bush has stepped up the bellicose talk directed at Iran and is massively reinforcing US military power in and near the Persian Gulf and also doing likewise within operational range of North Korea. Furthermore, he has reassured top Israeli leaders that they need not fear that his resolve to deal forcibly with Iran has been weakened one iota. Israeli leaders exited jubilant from their recent meeting with Bush.
As Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney asserted before the election, they were not up for re-election and no matter what the voters said, the two would continue to do what they believed were the right things for the national security of the United States.
In fact, Seymour Hersh reports in the The New Yorker magazine that one month before the election, Cheney asserted in a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building that the administration would be undeterred from pursuing the military option against Iran by any Democratic election victory. The report has credibility because after the election, Bush reassured Israeli leaders of his resolve to use military force to stop Iran, as noted above.

This is one of those articles that should be read in full as no excerpt co do it justice. It’s long, but if you have time, well worth it.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 17 2006 2:59 utc | 43

I meant to mention that the title of the article I’ve linked to in #43 is “Revamping US Policy: Full Speed Ahead, With Menace.” It seems to be part 1 of a series.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 17 2006 3:01 utc | 44

Back to Main