Cordesman on the British Defeat

February 24, 2007

Excerpts of CSIS’ strategist Anthony H. Cordesman’s latest on Iraq:

The British Defeat in the South and the Uncertain Bush “Strategy” in Iraq:
“Oil Spots,” “Ink Blots,” “White Space,” or Pointlessness? (pdf)

[T]he coming British cuts in many ways reflect the political reality that the British "lost" the south more than a year ago.
…
Iraq’s factions know that the US is involved in a war of attrition where these past [Bush] mistakes have created a political climate where it appears to be steadily more vulnerable to pressures that either will make it leave, or sharply limit how long it can play a major role. One year increasingly seems “long” by American domestic political standards, but the actors in Iraq and the region can play for years. In fact, they have to play for years. They live there and they know the chances of true stability are negligible for years to come.
…
[The US] has completely failed to set forth a strategy and meaningful operational plan for dealing with Iraq as a country even if it succeeds in Baghdad.
…
Another key reality is that the US really is no longer in control even of “Plan A;” the Iraqi government is. The British withdrawal plan may simply be yet another warning that the real-world contingency is plan I – one controlled and shaped by Iraq’s internal power struggles.
…
One of the lessons that both the Bush Administration and its various US opponents and critics may still have to learn is that at a given level of defeat, other actors control events. US discussions of alternative plans and strategies may well be becoming largely irrelevant.

I agree with Cordesman’s analysis. What he does not touch is the Neocons’ view who see Iraq as only one small battle in the long war. They will argue that Iraq may currently be a stalemate, but a decisive victory in the next battle of their war can and will solve that problem.

Baghdad is for wimps, real men go to Teheran.

Posted by b on February 24, 2007 at 21:41 UTC | Permalink

Comments

What of the oil programme being imposed upon Iraq? Will Iraqi forces block it, or overturn it if imposed? (The plan to replace state-owned administration with a body containing representatives of Western oil corporations.)

Posted by: mudduck | Feb 24 2007 23:33 utc | 1

…
One of the lessons that both the Bush Administration and its various US opponents and critics may still have to learn is that at a given level of defeat, other actors control events. US discussions of alternative plans and strategies may well be becoming largely irrelevant.
or it could as easily read:
One of the lessons that both the Bush Administration and its various US opponents and critics may still have to learn is that at a given level of irrelevance, other actors control events. US discussions of alternative plans and strategies may well be becoming synonymous with defeat.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 25 2007 5:13 utc | 2

Seymour Hersh’s newest: THE REDIRECTION – Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
…
In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
…
Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.
…
The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser.
…
American military and special-operations teams have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence and, according to a Pentagon consultant on terrorism and the former senior intelligence official, have also crossed the border in pursuit of Iranian operatives from Iraq.
…
Current and former American officials told me that the intelligence, which came from Israeli agents operating in Iran, includes a claim that Iran has developed a three-stage solid-fuelled intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads—each with limited accuracy—inside Europe. The validity of this human intelligence is still being debated. [b: bullshit]
…
In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.
…
Two carrier strike groups—the Eisenhower and the Stennis—are now in the Arabian Sea. One plan is for them to be relieved early in the spring, but there is worry within the military that they may be ordered to stay in the area after the new carriers arrive, according to several sources. …He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House’s not being “foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008.”
…
This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”
…
American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.
…
In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.”
…
The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the [Muslim] Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House.
…
Nasrallah, dressed, as usual, in religious garb, was waiting for me in an unremarkable apartment.
…
Nasrallah accused the Bush Administration of working with Israel to deliberately instigate fitna, an Arabic word that is used to mean “insurrection and fragmentation within Islam.” “In my opinion, there is a huge campaign through the media throughout the world to put each side up against the other,” he said. “I believe that all this is being run by American and Israeli intelligence.”
…
He went on, “I can say that President Bush is lying when he says he does not want Iraq to be partitioned. All the facts occurring now on the ground make you swear he is dragging Iraq to partition. And a day will come when he will say, ‘I cannot do anything, since the Iraqis want the partition of their country and I honor the wishes of the people of Iraq.’ ”
Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria.
…
Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”
…
Nasrallah said that he had no interest in initiating another war with Israel. However, he added that he was anticipating, and preparing for, another Israeli attack, later this year.
…
Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”—a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.
I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. (Negroponte declined to comment.)
The former senior intelligence official also told me that Negroponte did not want a repeat of his experience in the Reagan Administration, when he served as Ambassador to Honduras. “Negroponte said, ‘No way. I’m not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. running operations off the books, with no finding.’ ”
…
“This goes back to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me. “And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.”

Posted by: b | Feb 25 2007 7:31 utc | 3

Frank Rich says it feels like in the Summer of 2001: Where Were You That Summer of 2001?

Cable surfers have tuned out Iraq for a war with laughs: the battle over Anna Nicole’s decomposing corpse. Set this cultural backdrop against last week’s terrifying but little-heeded front-page Times account of American “intelligence and counterterrorism officials” leaking urgent warnings about Al Qaeda’s comeback, and ask yourself: Haven’t we been here before?
…
Tony Blair is pulling troops out of Iraq not because Basra is calm enough to be entrusted to Iraqi forces — it’s “not ready for transition,” according to the Pentagon’s last report — but to shift some British resources to the losing battle against the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
…
Who lost Iraq? is but a distraction from the more damning question, Who is losing the war on terrorism?
The record so far suggests that this White House has done so twice.
…
As Mr. Scheuer, the former C.I.A. official, reiterated last week: “Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that’s where it is.” It’s typical of Mr. Bush’s self-righteousness, however, that he would rather punt on that threat than own up to a mistake.
…
Five years after 9/11, the terrorists would seem to have us just where they want us — asleep — even as the system is blinking red once again.

Posted by: b | Feb 25 2007 8:22 utc | 4

Hidden in a story about Samara, the NYT hides this paragraph

Captain Ferris and his soldiers see the problems clearly, but the company is proud of its achievements, like bringing the police force back from near collapse.
In six months, the company has established a network of local informants and recently captured a Qaeda member who was sent to Guantánamo because of his connections to suspected terrorists outside Iraq.

Still feeding the Gitmo monster?

Posted by: b | Feb 25 2007 8:24 utc | 5

The “Most Trusted Man in America” thinks the Iraq debacle is a disaster, too.

CBS 5 then asked if his strong words against the Iraq War would have the same impact as his words against the Vietnam War.
“Well, I think its a little late for that now,” Cronkite said. I would like to think it would be helpful in getting us out of there. Anybody who can put another match to that fire, to get us out would be, I think welcome”

As for real men going to Teheran, however, the Pentagon might be finding itself shy a few “real men”.
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
snip…

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

That still doesn’t rule out a false flag “Gulf of Tonkin” type incident to fulfill thickheaded Cheney’s wishes for a new reality, however…

A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.
However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.

Looks like there is a showdown between Cheney’s White House and top US Army brass in the works. Unfortunately, as they say, when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.

Posted by: Monolycus | Feb 25 2007 8:25 utc | 6

The telgraph, so maybe unreliable, the first issue is know, the second new to me, but it’s plausible : US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.
…
The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.

Posted by: b | Feb 25 2007 12:50 utc | 7

Jeeze, it’s enough to make you want to puke, reading this stuff — but thanks for all the clips and links.
MOA remains one of the best places for background info and analysis/thoughts on the most pressing matters and developments in the world — unless of course one’s priority is Britney Spears’ haircut or whoever that person was who OD’d on methadon, “Smit”, “Snits” — o yeah, “Smith”!
The withdrawal of troops from southern Iraq reeks of defeat, but the Danish politicians are creaming in their jeans looking for a good excuse to get our boots out of there.
Hmmmn, just happenstance I suppose, but the news in Denmark today is a “leaked” report that there are 2000 Muslim Brits heaving and breathing to do a terror thingie in Britain — they are plotting and scheming to do Al Q’s bidding — be afraid, be very afraid is the meme.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Feb 25 2007 14:42 utc | 8

while looking for a reference to the first wave of B-52s coming from the US in the first gulf war I found this page. It is quite amazing to see what an elaborate plan was put together for a rather weak country. I believe this level of planning was well observed by the Iraqis and now by the Iranians as well and knowing that there was no way to resist a full out assault from the US they had concentrated all their efforts in preparing for resistance in the form of guerrilla warfare after the invasion.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 25 2007 14:46 utc | 9

dan- if I remember correctly, that was exactly what happened. Sometime after the fact I remember reading that U.S. forces were surprised that they didn’t face more resistance, and then the realization came that the fight was coming after the occupation.
it is terribly frightening to be in the U.S. right now, knowing that Cheney is planning to strike Iran, no matter that the military that isn’t insane (possibly the non-Christofacsists?) is signalling its resistance, no matter that Hersh is telling Congress NOW what is up (and I would bet that some in the military are leakers for his article.)
I don’t know the protocol, but isn’t it possible to arrest Cheney and Abrams, etc. and charge them with conspiring to overthrow the U.S. govt? That would help to check this whole “unitary executive” issue (unitary as in, Dick is both vp and prez?) Congress really really needs to get rid of Cheney, not only for the good of the U.S., but for the good of the whole world.
the political machinations of letting the Bush regime stay in power in order to win the next prez are idiotic at a time when Dr. Strangelove is calling the shots.
It has really gotten to me, making me feel so hopeless, to see what is happening and to know that nothing anyone does that is not some sort of IMMEDIATE legal removal of Cheney from office is going to stop him and his co-conspirators.

Posted by: fauxreal | Feb 25 2007 15:57 utc | 10

fauxreal, there are impeachment resolutions in progress in three states – new mexico, washington, and vermont – and there is activity fermenting in california, maine, massachusetts, and i believe iowa. from what i have read, cheney looks more practically impeachable than bush and chances are that will be the direction taken. i received the following in my email last week (before dave lindorf’s event in washington):

NM Leads State Race to Send Impeachment Resolution to Congress
House rules allow impeachment to begin with a Resolution from one state legislature. Three states have begun the process – NM, WA, and VT – and NM has an early lead…
1. New Mexico’s resolution (SJR 5) cleared its first hurdle last Friday when it passed the Rules Committee on a unanimous 5-0 vote. Citizens turned out in force and gave powerful emotional appeals for impeachment. Incredibly, not a single Republican showed up to defend Bush! (Is that a signal that Republicans want to quietly help Democrats impeach Bush before the 2008 election to avoid a repeat of the 2006 GOP wipeout?) The NM bill must clear two more committees before it goes to the full Senate.
2. In Washington State, Senator Eric Oemig’s Resolution (SJM 8016) will have its first hearing on March 1. Activists led by “state-at-home mom” Linda Boyd will hold a rally for impeachment and investigations in Olympia on the Capitol steps in at 1:00 p.m.
3. In Vermont, Rep. Daryl Pillsbury’s resolution (JRH-15) has 22 co-sponsors, with 75 needed for passage. State legislators are getting heavy anti-impeachment pressure from Vermont’s Members of Congress, so a strong grassroots movement is urgent. Cindy Sheehan and John Nichols will barnstorm VT for impeachment from March 2-4.
The main argument against state (and local) resolutions has been that states (and towns) should not get involved in national policy. Of course states have always been involved – state legislatures actually appointed U.S. Senators until 1913, and have always weighed in on national issues. Right now 20 legislatures are considering resolutions against Bush’s escalation in Iraq. It’s time for all state legislatures to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney!

dave lindorff’s article on counterpunch about the rally in olympia is a good antidote for the depression. i’d post a proper link, but for some reason typepad won’t let me. you can find it in the front page listings at counterpunch.org. you can also find info about each of the state impeachment proceedings at afterdowningstreet.org and impeachbush.tv.

Posted by: conchita | Feb 25 2007 17:18 utc | 11

Sy Hersch said on Blitzkrieg’s show today that what he did not get into in his NYer article was all the black ops stuff the US is doing in Lebanon and Iran and that it’s being funded secretly – no Congressional appropriations or oversight – that it involves giving money, if indirectly, to Sunni terrorists in Leb. in oppo to Hez/Iran (i.e. “Shia Crescent”) forces.
After all, look at what the lessons learned from Iran/contra were: keep your black ops out of sight of Congress and the CIA, run it all out of the VP’s office.

Posted by: Hamburger | Feb 25 2007 18:51 utc | 12

hersh on blitz video via crooks and liars.

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2007 19:27 utc | 13

Pulling out troops on the ground provides good cover for the buried story, that they’ve doubled their presence in the Gulf to get ready for next war.
Britain’s senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf has revealed that Royal Navy deployments in the region have doubled since October in a build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower.
Commodore Keith Winstanley, who serves as deputy commander of coalition maritime operations for US Central Command, has told The Daily Telegraph that British trade and strategic interests dictate the necessity of a high and sustained commitment to patrol the seas around the Middle East.
…
The additional Royal Navy vessels sent to the Gulf include HMS Cornwall, a type 22 frigate, two mine sweepers, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blythe, and a vessel from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
The British ships will work in an American-led coalition of naval vessels, which has expanded rapidly in recent weeks with the arrival of a second aircraft carrier battle group, led by USS Stennis.
While most of the coalition is engaged in routine patrols, Cdre Winstanley refers to the area of operations as the “battle-space”.
Commitments include protecting Iraq’s southern oil terminals against attack until the Iraqi navy can prove its competence to ensuring the six miles of shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open. link

Posted by: jj | Feb 25 2007 19:52 utc | 14

‘Mercenaries’ to fill UK Iraq troop gap

MINISTERS are negotiating multi-million-pound contracts with private security firms to cover some of the gaps created by British troop withdrawals.
Days after Tony Blair revealed that he wanted to withdraw 1,600 soldiers from war-torn Basra within months, it has emerged that civil servants hope “mercenaries” can help fill the gap left behind.
Click to learn more…
Officials from the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence will meet representatives from the private security industry within the next month to discuss “options” for increasing their business in Iraq in the coming years.
…
The MoD has consistently maintained that it has not paid a PSC to carry out any security duties in Iraq in almost four years since British forces arrived. But officials from the department are planning to join colleagues from the Foreign Office at a “summit” with members of the British Association of Private Security Companies (BAPSC) next month.
The development will reawaken complaints that the government is “privatising” the occupation of Iraq.
Pressure groups have consistently warned that private security contractors have been given too much freedom to operate in Iraq, and one warned that the country was being flooded with PSCs as part of the British “exit strategy”.

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2007 20:26 utc | 15

beq posted this in another thread. GQ (?!) proposes articles of impeachment against Cheney.

In the case of George W. Bush, there may be any number of reasons not to add an eighteenth name to the list. These range from the moderate (that two consecutive presidential impeachments would do more harm than good to the nation) to the provocative (that while Bush has been wrong about a staggering number of issues, he is too hapless to be held accountable for it) to the pragmatic (that even if Bush were impeached, we would still be stuck with Vice President Cheney). There is even, for those inclined to such things, an argument by design: that the president is the president, and therefore God designed it that way.
But none of these apply to Vice President Cheney, and not only because it was Cheney (and not God, or George W. Bush, or anybody else) who selected himself as vice president back in 2000. With Cheney, there are also no lingering questions about capacity, motive, or malice. Over the past six years, as the country has spiraled into military misadventure, fiscal madness, and environmental meltdown, the vice president has not merely been wrong about the issues; he has been duplicitous, deceitful, and deliberately destructive to the American democracy. These things can no longer be denied by rational minds:

Posted by: small coke | Feb 25 2007 21:27 utc | 16

Hersch has an interesting article in The New Yorker about the volitilty of the whole middle east region… and strongly hints that Cheney keeps poking it with a stick.
At least the days when Powell et al can brazenly lie about “intelligence” to the UN seem to be over. The folk in the US might still jump when these little boys cry wolf, but the rest of the world is asking for a little more credibility nowadays.
U.N. calls U.S. data on Iran’s nuclear aims unreliable

“Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that’s come to us has proved to be wrong,” a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency’s intelligence stream as “very cold now” because “so little panned out.”
The reliability of U.S. information and assessments on Iran is increasingly at issue as the Bush administration confronts the emerging regional power on several fronts: its expanding nuclear effort, its alleged support for insurgents in Iraq and its backing of Middle East militant groups.
Still doesn’t rule out that false flag scenario I mentioned before… to my way of thinking, it makes it more likely as they run out of other options to get folk on board.

Posted by: Monolycus | Feb 26 2007 3:58 utc | 17

Jen-jang! Last paragraph above was me. Forgot to close my tag.

Posted by: Monolycus | Feb 26 2007 4:01 utc | 18

And the New Yorker was already linked to at #3. Damn. I need more coffee.

Posted by: Monolycus | Feb 26 2007 5:43 utc | 19

Back to Main