When all else fails, change the talking points!

From the department of moving goalposts:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

Now, the focus has shifted to smaller, short-term goals - like authorizing a budget for the nation. (But the Iraqis are already in the process of doing that anyway.)

And of course, the Bush maladministration is all hot and bothered to get the U.N. mandate that authorizes the presence of the American occupiers renewed. (They do this routinely because it's a puppet government that would not exist for more than thirty days if the Americans weren't propping them up.)

And de-de-baathification, so members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party can reenter government service. (That's merely pro forma - former Baathists have been rehired on the q.t. for some time, because they are the ones who actually know how to, you know, do the jobs.)

[Keep reading...I'm not even warmed up yet...]

The administration insists that they have not given up on their larger goals, averring that they will be met *eventually.* But damnit, they have to figure out a way to make lemonade, and do it pronto.

They sold the AEI's Surge™ scheme by packaging it as a necessity, needed to give the political process "breathing space" to achieve reconciliation. Tours were extended, leaving soldiers in combat for 15 months with only 12 months dwell-time. They sacrificed American lives like they meant nothing. And the Iraqi parliament went on vacation the entire month of August.
Tony "Karma's a Bitch" Snow excused the fecklessness of the Iraqi politicians with a blasé "It's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August," conveniently forgetting that his war-criminal boss sent American fighting forces into that hellhole, and they didn't even get the benefit of operating in an air conditioned Green Zone when it was 130 degrees.

But reconciliation didn't happen.

In fact, Maliki and Hashemi snipe at one another like two bleached-blond teenage girls vying for head cheerleader in a one-high-school Texas football town.

Instead of sucking it up and admitting that things didn't work as planned, they are insisting that modest steps such as these - if taken soon - could, maybe, perhaps, if they cross their fingers and say the right magic words in just the right order and cadence, perhaps while hopping on one foot and chanting "I believe" - set the stage for "more progress." You know - like the Surge™ set the stage for the arming of the Sunni thugs who in the past were the insurgents who were killing Americans. (Well, give 'em guns and money and you can rent some temporary loyalty...)

But not to fear! aWol is "applying pressure" on the Iraqi government to produce some sort of political progress. “If we can show progress outside of the security sector alone, that will go a long way to demonstrate that we are in fact on a sustainable path to stability in Iraq,” said one senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity. On Saturday, [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker said the military had created opportunities for progress, and added that there were "indications" that Iraqis wanted to move forward on the local and national levels. But he quickly dialed back the expectations and cautioned against expecting quick results on the core issues.

“We are seeing encouraging signs of movement. This is going to be a long, hard slog,” he said, apparently channeling Rumsfeld, "It is going to be one thing at a time, maybe two things at a time, we hope with increasing momentum,” he said. “It is a long-term process.”

Although violence has ticked downward in recent months, the administration has not touted this development, because if they did, scrutiny would surely follow, and that they certainly don't want.

Furthermore, there are clear signs that any influence Americans have over Iraqi politicians is dwindling. In the absence of religious and ethnic reconciliation, the expectation has been dialed back to "accommodation." An American official, again speaking on condition of anonymity, said “We can’t pass their legislation. We can’t make them like each other. We can’t even make them talk to each other."

Crocker at least realizes that “The political stuff does not lend itself to sending out a couple of battalions to help the Iraqi’s pass legislation.” Still, he insisted that there are some positive signs that Iraqis are interested in making their own headway. For example, he pointed to Provincial governors, who are pressing for a law to define their powers. “We are past the point where it is an American agenda,” the ambassador said. “It is what needs to be done in Iraqi terms.” (In plain English - this is how warlords are made.)

Officials in both Baghdad and Washington are both realistic about the fact that military gains are not enough to overcome the deep divides that separate Iraqi factions. But in both capitals there are leaders who still engage in magical thinking. “We need a grand bargain among all the groups,” said a member of the Iraqi government - speaking - you guessed it - anonymously.

The most disturbing part of the whole thing is the repeated references to "long hard slogs" and the allusions to extended, multi-year commitments of American forces, like it's no big deal. But it is a big deal. Maybe not to these worthless, faithless and feckless jackals who have nothing to lose. But to the rest of us, it sure as hell is.

And if you agree, vote Democratic. Give the congress a Democratic president, and just as importantly the votes to end the obstruction of the Republican wingnuts who have no qualms about obstructing progress at the expense of American lives.

George aWol Bush has made the biggest mess the world has ever seen, and intends to keep the fucking up going apace and leave a mess so dire that the next president won't be able to extract us from.

Don't let him get away with it. Congress holds the pursestrings. Not one dime without strings attached. Not one dime.

There's more: "When all else fails, change the talking points!" >>

More "Phony Soldiers" Piping Up

About two months ago, the New York Times published an op-ed from seven infantry NCOs that questioned the wisdom of “staying the course” in Iraq. The piece was damning, and punctuated by the fact that one of the Soldiers was seriously wounded between the time the piece was written and when it was published, and two more of the seven were killed shortly after.

Today, on the fifth anniversary of the congress passing the AUMF, the Washington Post ran an op-ed penned by twelve former Army Captains who served in Iraq; and it is just as damning and just as sweeping. Five years into this mess, the military is over-extended and under-resourced, and the nation of Iraq is in tatters.

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

This is the scenario against which the U.S. military is struggling to hold the nation of Iraq together, with too-few troops. Even with the additional 30,000 that the “Surge™” temporarily afforded. There are simply not enough Soldiers and Marines in-country to clear insurgents, hold territory and build sustainable institutions.

…Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

American G.I.’s are tasked with too many objectives and too much battle space. This serves to makes them targets, and sadly, one of the inevitabilities of a protracted withdrawal will be a ratcheting upward of attacks against the occupying forces, the civilian leadership of the nation, and third-party consultants. They will also, without a doubt, be caught in the crossfire of the Iraqi civil war.

Iraq’s security forces will be unable to salvage the situation. Even if they had adequate training, equipment and commitment; with their numbers shy of 350,000 there are too few of them to successfully hold the country together.

Besides that, soldiers in the Iraqi army pretty much leave at will, once the pay envelopes and weapons are passed out; the police are controlled by the militias, the corruption is systemic and the United States taxpayers are equipping and arming the very elements that will fight one another once the American forces inevitably withdraw.

American Generals are laying plans that are contingent on peace breaking out in Iraq, while simultaneously, the Iraqis are preparing for a full-on, salt-the-fields and poison-the-wells civil war.

The Captains close the piece with an uncomfortable truth…There is only one way to sustain an operation like is currently being pursued in Iraq, and that is to bring back the draft. “Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.”

“America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.”

There's more: "More "Phony Soldiers" Piping Up" >>

Another General Denounces Bush and the Iraq Fiasco

Retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez took a swipe at the aWol Bush maladministration and their inept, incompetent and inconsistent management of the occupation of Iraq. The United States is “living a nightmare with no end in sight.” He warned. “After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism.” General Sanchez was speaking to a gathering here of military reporters and editors.

The remarks were made during one of the first public speeches Sanchez has given since leaving the Army late last year. He blamed the administration for launching and mismanaging a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan”and he denounced the current “surge™” strategy as a “desperate” move that will fail to establish long-term stability.

General Sanchez is the most senior in a string of retired generals to harshly criticize the administration’s conduct of the war. Asked following his remarks why he waited nearly a year after his retirement to outline his views, he responded that that it was not the place of active duty officers to challenge lawful orders from civilian authorities. General Sanchez, who is said to be considering a book, promised further public statements criticizing officials by name.

“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”

The White House had no initial comment.

[keep reading]

Sanchez is speaking out, in the face of the slime machine, even though he knows full well that he has an Abu Ghraib problem that will make him a target of vicious criticisms and accusations that he is trying to shift blame for his own shortcomings to the poor, hapless president. Although Sanchez was cleared of wrongdoing in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal by an Army investigation, he became a symbol of an occupation that was botched from the get-go.

Look for accusations that he has an axe to grind, that he is seeking revenge against the president who opted not to nominate him for a fourth star and effectively ended his career, forcing him into retirement.

Taking questions from reporters after his presentation, he included the military command structure, himself included, among those who exercised poor judgment and made tragic mistakes in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He lamented the failure to insist on a post-war stabilization plan.

Still, the bulk of his criticism was directed at the Bush administration and their failures of leadership. He lambasted them for failures to mobilize the entire U.S. government and not just the military in the reconstruction and stabilization efforts in Iraq. “National leadership continues to believe that victory can be achieved by military power alone,” he said. “Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat.”

He accused the administration of failing to craft any kind of strategy that went beyond military force. “The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder responsibility for the catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable,” General Sanchez said.

There's more: "Another General Denounces Bush and the Iraq Fiasco" >>

Get out your checkbooks

...cause this is gonna cost, and there is no way tax cuts are gonna cover the tab.

Once again, the projected date for Iraqi security forces to take over from the American forces has been pushed further into the future, to at least July of 2007.

And doesn’t that just dovetail beautifully with the recent CBO report on the cost of occupying Iraq, as requested by Senator Kent Conrad?

I read the report.

Make no mistake about it…The cabal in charge right now is setting up the board for an occupation without end in Iraq. To their way of thinking, the only undecided is – will 55,000+ Americans be embroiled in the current combat role? Or will 55,000 be stationed at hardened bases, i.e. the Korea model?

The CBO reports that the former will cost $4-8 Billion up front, and $25 Billion per year thereafter; the latter $8 Billion up front, and about $8 Billion per year thereafter.

(Keep reading...)

In both scenarios, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) bases their projections on the long-term presence of

• A division headquarters
• Four Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCT’s)
• Six Tactical Fighter Squadrons
• 10,000 training personnel

The stage is being set for a Permanent Security Arrangement.

George Bush – who deserted his unit in a time of war – has already decided that we are there forever (or until the oil runs out – whichever comes first) on his whim.

Meantime, the spineless cowards in Congress mewl most pathetically; then fall in line.

If you disagree with the policy of occupying that country for decades; if you disagree with the plan for children not yet born to patrol the same streets that our young men and women are dying on right now, make your voice heard today.

The time is now – this is election season – nail your candidates down – and if they fall in line with perpetual occupation, nail their political careers to a proverbial cross.

There's more: "Get out your checkbooks" >>

Iraqi Interior Ministry revokes authority of Blackwater to operate in Iraq

In the wake of a Sunday firefight near Nisoor square in Baghdad that left eight civilians dead and fourteen injured, Iraq's Interior Ministry has revoked the license of Blackwater Security Consulting to operate inside Iraq.

Details are doling out slowly, but witness accounts of the incident reported that one side of the gun battle involved westerners driving sport utility vehicles, of the type used by western contractors; al-Iraqiya, the state-owned television network, reported that a western security company was involved, but did not identify which one.

The firefight erupted after a State Department motorcade came under small-arms fire near Nisoor Square, and one of the vehicles was disabled. No State Department officials were injured, but offered no information on Iraqi casualties.

Today, the Iraqi Interior Ministry took concrete steps to rein in one of the mercenary outfits that infests their country. "We have revoked Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq. As of now they are not allowed to operate anywhere in the Republic of Iraq," Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said Monday. "The investigation is ongoing, and all those responsible for Sunday's killing will be referred to Iraqi justice."

Blackwater is just one of many *security firms* (when did we stop calling mercenaries by their rightful name?) contracted by the U.S. government during the occupation of Iraq. In fact, the number of employees of these so-called "security" firms outnumbers the coalition forces. Hundreds have lost their lives.

Iraqi officials have complained bitterly about shootings by private military contractors, but Iraqi courts lack the authority to bring contractors to trial or hold them accountable. Additionally, they are not subject to UCMJ, so essentially, a contractor is unaccountable to anyone - a contractor can commit a war crime and the stiffest punishment will be getting tossed out of the country, still a free man. The U.S. military has complained that mercenaries will touch off violence, then call them to clean up the mess.

In February the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform estimated that nearly $4 billion had been paid out to mercenary outfits since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. These costs have forced the delay and cancellation of reconstruction projects.

Stay tuned for further developments. I will be revisiting the issue as details emerge.

There's more: "Iraqi Interior Ministry revokes authority of Blackwater to operate in Iraq" >>

Some Questions for General Petraeus

Ever since the Surge™ plans rolled off the presses at the American Enterprise Institute and the escalation got underway, any time anyone has brought up withdrawal of troops and drawing down in Iraq, Resident Evil™ and his slavering lackeys have engaged in a stall tactic. “Wait for September.” is the rote refrain. “Wait to hear what General Petraeus has to say.” Well, it's September.

(As if we could count on receiving the unvarnished truth about success on the ground! Ha! I inwardly roll my eyes. I’ve read that op-ed before – right before the last presidential selection, in fact.)

Well, we know he is going to spin and mince and parse and do a soft-soap routine extraordinaire. None the less, when he is in front of the congressional committees, I would dearly love to see him asked to answer the following questions – and for the committees to make him answer them in a forthright manner.

Start at the beginning.

General Petraeus, could you start by defining the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq? How does that correspond with the original grounds for the invasion?

What was the population of Iraq in March 2003? What was the unemployment rate? GNP?

What is the population now? Unemployment rate? GNP?

How many Iraqis have fled the country as refugees? How many people have fled violence in their neighborhoods and home districts, but remain in the country as internally displaced persons? How many internal refugee camps have sprung up in recent months?

Of the population remaining in Iraq, how many would you estimate are actively involved with violence toward other Iraqis? Toward American troops?

Would you provide the names of and background on groups which the U.S. maintains have engaged in violence against Americans?

al Qaeda in Iraq

Of the jihadist/resistance fighters in Iraq, how many claim an affiliation with al Qaeda? How many are members of the main al Qaeda organization, and would take direct orders from ObL? Of those claiming membership in AQI, how many are Iraqis? How many are foreign nationals? Of the foreign nationals, where do they come from? How many jihadist fighters do you estimate come from each of these other nations? How many were loyal to al Qaeda before the United States invaded Iraq? Can you provide names and background information on those claiming to be AQI leadership? Are any of the professed leaders Iraqi? How many? How many people in Iraq professed membership in or allegiance to al Qaeda in March 2003.

The Insurgency

Can you provide the statistics on insurgents by sect? Can you give us this information for each province? Of the insurgents in Iraq today, how many have been active since the invasion? How many have taken up arms since the bombing of the al-Askiri Shrine in February 2006? What provinces have seen attacks committed against American forces since the “Surge™” achieved >50% of the troop buildup. What provinces have been violence free in this time period?

Iraqi Casualties

How does the U.S. count Iraqis killed by gunshots? How are Iraqis killed by explosions counted? How are Iraqis killed by American air strikes counted? Do you feel the slightest pang of conscience when you parse death statistics by whether a victim died execution style, or facing their killer? Do you think that matters to the decedent or their family?

Iraqi Perceptions

How many Iraqis oppose continuing the American military presence in that country? Of Iraqis not engaged in violence against Americans, how many nonetheless do not object to attacks against American forces?

The Missing Millions

How much cash was airlifted to Iraq after the invasion of 2003? We know that at least $110 million went missing from your command in Mosul. What happened to that money, General? How much of that missing money has been used to fund the insurgency, either directly or indirectly?

The Missing Weapons

We know that fully half of American casualties in Iraq are the result of the failure to secure munitions (al Qua Qua) in the early days of the invasion. Were you in any way responsible for the decisions that led to that failure? Who was? Have they faced any accountability?

The GAO estimates that approximately half of all light weapons supplied by American forces to Iraqi military and police forces – 190,000 AK-47’s and handguns – have gone missing. Who got those weapons? Have they been turned against American forces? Used against other Iraqis in sectarian attacks? Used in criminal acts?

Infrastructure

How many bridges have been attacked since the troop buildup got underway?

How many hours of electricity does the average Iraqi experience in a day? What was the average before the invasion in March 2003? What was the average temperature in Iraq this August? How do Iraqis cool their homes? How many times has the electrical grid been attacked by insurgents since the start of the escalation? Who is responsible for the security of the grid? How many hours of electricity does your headquarters enjoy per day?

How many Iraqi homes, on average went without water for more than 24 hours during the month of August? What is the status of the water delivery system? How safe is the water to drink, when it is available? Hypothetically: If your family came to visit you in Iraq, would you feel comfortable with them drinking the water?

***

And then, after a brief restroom break, I would start asking even tougher questions about the status of the Iraqi security forces. And I would segue into the ten and twenty year occupation predictions and projections. But that is me – and I am not a lily-livered poltroon afraid of being perceived as being mean to a poor little helpless four-star general.

(Hat tip to one of the commenters at Political Animal for posting many of these same questions, and many more. Reading that comment, I was able to pull all the disparate strands of outrage together and write a post that passes for cogent.)

There's more: "Some Questions for General Petraeus" >>

Statistical Gymnastics Come Under Close Scrutiny, Outed as Bullshit

Recent assertions by the U.S. military that violence in Iraq has markedly decreased in recent months has come under severe scrutiny from experts both inside and outside the government. Consensus is that that statistics offered by the military are questionable at best, as the pattern emerged that the military simply ignores negative trends. (Before anyone screams "Outliers are tossed all the time!" let me save you the humiliation of a lecture - I actually know what an outlier is. For the record, an outlier is a data point that is more than three standard deviations from the mean. You can't just call any data point you don't like an outlier and omit it to get the result you want and expect your findings to be taken seriously.)

The administration has pinned everything on the reduction of violence metric to prove that finally they have a strategy that is working! That is what Gen. David Petraeus is going to say in front of congress next week when he comes to give his aWol's report on the state of security in Iraq. He is expected to try to convince the congress that there has been a 75% decrease in sectarian attacks. (Problem there: I do not think that word actually means what they want us to believe it means.)

When others look at the full range of data, they find that the military cherry-picks the data for positive indicators and ignores the negative. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Meanwhile, military officials would have us believe that the CIA, DIA and GAO are all using flawed methodologies that give an inaccurate picture.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."

One of the troubling trends is the ommission of violence attributed to Shia militias fighting other Shia militias, which has gripped Basra and last month resulted in the assassination of two southern provincial governors.

According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

Here it might be beneficial to remember that the Iraq Study Group report that was released in December identified "significant underreporting of violence," noting that "a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base." The report concluded that "good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

They are bringing their wares to the Capitol next week and the hucksters, pitchmen and carnival barkers are hocking the cherry-picked data in a most full-throated manner.

I just have two words for my countrymen, especially the 535 of 'em that control the pursestrings: Caveat Emptor.

There's more: "Statistical Gymnastics Come Under Close Scrutiny, Outed as Bullshit" >>

The great unraveling is under way

When sharks smell blood in the water, it matters not that the wounded is one of their own. They tear the unfortunate creature to bits anyway. The Bush maladministration is experiencing a similar phenomenon.

Dead Certain, the new book by GQ reporter Robert Draper is a withering indictment of the inner workings of a White House suffering from 'Mad Cowboy Disease.' One of the revelations in the pages, is the denial by the Resident that he was "in on" the disbanding of the Iraqi military forces. He disavows all knowledge of the decision-making process, and actually takes a page from Fredo's book - actually saying he "doesn't remember" the decision being made or even any discussion about it. “The policy had been to keep the army intact; didn’t happen,” Mr. Bush told the interviewer. When the president was asked how he had reacted when he learned that the policy was being reversed, Mr. Bush replied, “Yeah, I can’t remember, I’m sure I said, “This is the policy, what happened?’ ”

Seriously - he wants one and all to believe that Paul Bremer's acted unilaterally in the creation of a well-armed and well-trained insurgency that was at the ready to commence a guerrilla war against the occupying invaders in the wake of the dissolution.

One little hitch in that get-along. Bremer archived the correspondence, and provided it to the New York Times. (As if we needed more proof that Bush is a god-damned liar and unfit to serve you lunch, let alone as chief executive and commander in chief of the most powerful military the planet has ever seen.)

“We must make it clear to everyone that we mean business: that Saddam and the Baathists are finished,” Mr. Bremer wrote in a letter that was drafted on May 20, 2003, and sent to the president on May 22 through Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense.

After recounting American efforts to remove members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein from civilian agencies, Mr. Bremer told Mr. Bush that he would “parallel this step with an even more robust measure” to dismantle the Iraq military.

One day later, Mr. Bush wrote back a short thank you letter. “Your leadership is apparent,” the president wrote. “You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence.”

Mr. Bremer appears to be at the end of a slow-burn over administration current and former officials backing away from the decision to disband the military like they have just caught whif of a skunk. “This didn’t just pop out of my head,” he said in a telephone interview on Monday, adding that he had sent a draft of the order to top Pentagon officials and discussed it “several times” with Mr. Rumsfeld. Bremer is making it abundantly clear that he is pissed off unhappy about being portrayed as a loose cannon by various and sundry former administration officials.

Bremer said that he widely distributed a draft of the proposed order throughout the administration and the Pentagon. Among those who received a copy were disgraced World Bank President

Mr. Bremer said he sent a draft of the proposed order on May 9, shortly before he departed for his new post in Baghdad, to Mr. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon officials.

Among others who received the draft order, he said, were Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense; Doug "stupidest fucker in the world" Feith, then under secretary of defense for policy; Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, then head of the American-led coalition forces in Iraq; and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bremer also maintains that Rumsfeld was briefed multiple times in the plan, and British military officials were briefed as well. The Joint Chiefs responded with great detail, removing any doubt that they understood the proposal.

What is emerging is a picture of a White House that has been in disarray and beset by infighting from the earliest days. Some days I feel like I am watching four-year olds "play government" and other days I feel like I am helplessly looking on in horror as drunken monkeys play with loaded handguns.

There's more: "The great unraveling is under way" >>

Reid offers an olive branch to anti-war Republicans

Accepting the contentious nature of the debate ahead over the approaching weeks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has acquiesced on the “date certain” provision of upcoming legislation in an effort to build an alliance with a small-but-growing contingent of anti-war Republican lawmakers in an effort to find ways to draw down the occupation of Iraq. .

He acknowledged that his previous insistence on a withdrawal deadline had presented an insurmountable obstacle for many Republicans who have said they oppose continued involvement but who were unwilling to commit to timetables.

"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."

Reid's unwavering stance this summer earned him critics who said he was playing politics by refusing to bargain with antiwar Republicans. In the interview, he said that his goal remains an immediate return of U.S. troops but that now is the time to work with the GOP. He cited bringing up legislation after Labor Day that would require troops to have more home leave, forcing military leaders to reduce troop levels, a measure that has drawn some Republican support.

On September 4, Congress returns from the August recess, facing an angry electorate and a desperate executive. The coming week will see the congress take the initiative on the assessment of the situation in Iraq by opening hearings into a GAO report that will be released Tuesday, and by taking up the issues raised by the report of another Blue Ribbon panel. The following week, Petraeus will bring his particularly insidious brand of spin to the Hill, where he will appeal for more time, blood and treasure to pour into the sand of Iraq.

After the Parade of the Viziers is done, and the Resident makes his own report, the debate will begin anew.

That debate screeched to a halt after the fake filibuster in July. All that stunt managed to do was piss everyone off, Republican and Democrat alike. The Republicans successfully blocked the withdrawal measure, because the advocates for withdrawal were unable to reach cloture and pass the legislation with only four Republican votes.

Reid wisely dropped the war debate after that, and attempted to shift the focus to the obstructionism of the Republicans.

This tactic gave the White House a toehold, and they set about building the case that the ridiculously-named “Surge™” strategy is working, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

"I don't think we had any choice," Reid said, shrugging off past skirmishes. "I have no regrets about the way that I have tried to marshal the troops. It's been hard to keep all the Democrats together, but we've done that."

But looking forward, Reid said he will encourage new coalitions to develop, with a more bipartisan hue. "There is no reason that this be Democrat versus Republican," he said. But his GOP colleagues, he added, must be willing to stand up to Bush, as few have so far. "All these people saying September is here, September is the time -- they're going to have belly up to the bar and decide how to vote," Reid said.

Sen. Jack Reed, a close senate ally of Harry Reid on Iraq policy was circumspect. He noted that with every shift in the Iraq debate, "we've picked up more votes." But he quickly added that meeting the Democrats' ultimate goal of ending the war, well, "There's only so many things you can do."

One of the pieces of failed legislation that Reid will dust off will be the proposal by Sen. James Webb that would mandate that troops deployed to a combat zone get an equal or greater amount of dwell time after their rotation before being redeployed back to combat. This would not set withdrawal dates, but it would effectively curtail troop levels. When the issue came up for a vote earlier in the summer, it received 56 yes votes, but, again, obstructionist Republicans had invoked cloture, which requires 60 votes. Worth noting: Seven Republicans voted yes on the proposal last time, and Senator Johnson is returning to the Senate in September.

The month of September appears to be shaping up to be everything it was billed and more. It seems like every one of 535 congresscritters went to Iraq this month. It wasn’t all of 'em, of course, but it was eight sold out shows a week all month long in every house. Some fell victim to the Green Zone Fog.

Also worth considering is legislation offered by Senators Ken Salazar and Lamar Alexander that would make the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group into official U.S. policy. The ISG, which was mostly ignored by the Bush administration, included defining specific roles for combat forces and far greater diplomatic initiatives, especially diplomatic initiatives involving the neighboring states. Under the Salazar/ISG legislation, if progress failed to occur, withdrawal would begin early next year. The Salazar-Alexander Bill has attracted 12 additional co-sponsors, at least half of them Republicans. "I respect that some Democrats want us out tomorrow, and some Republicans want a victory like Germany and Japan, but that's not going to happen," Alexander said. But he warned that, given the onset of the 2008 presidential campaign season, "September may be our last best chance" to force a legislative solution.

Re-election season is indeed upon us. All 435 house seats and 34 Senate seats are up this election cycle, and every last one of them will have to answer tough questions about Iraq, posed by an angry electorate. Brian Baird found out just how popular war support is at home. The bloodletting for 2008 is going to commence early. We only thought 2006 was contentious - 2008 is going to be absolutely brutal. It certainly isn't going to be politics for the faint of heart. I hope they are rested up, because the days on the other side of the weekend are going to be grueling (I myself have been on a training regimen for weeks in preparation).

There's more: "Reid offers an olive branch to anti-war Republicans" >>

A Sober Assessment of Iraqi Security Forces

Iraqi National Police man a check point, as seen from a bullet-ridden
armored carrier window in Baghdad's Saydiya neighborhood
Photo by Marko Georgiev for The New York Times

The independent commission established by Congress last May for the express purpose of assessing the capabilities of the Iraq securityforces, has arrived at some sobering conclusions. The commission, headed up by retired Marine Corps General James L. Jones, former commander of EUCOM, has concluded that the unchecked sectarian infiltration that has been part and parcel of the current police forces in Iraq since the units started forming is too great to be overcome. Instead, the entire system needs to be scrapped, and a new state police force started over from scratch.

The report, to be delivered to congress next week, is one more in a long list of offsets that will be obstacles to overcome for Petraeus and Crocker when they come to the Hill week after next. The Jones commission assessments are likely to get a great deal of attention because the 14 member team, made up of former or retired military officers, Defense Department officials and law enforcement officers, is highly respected oveall. In addition, the commission is narrowly focused, concentrating solely on the worthiness of the Iraqi security forces.

This critical indictment of the security forces is another body blow to the leadership of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and will likely be seized on by congressional opponents of the Bush escalation strategy, offering it as proof that a fundamental shift in American policy is required.

And Americans are once more on the horns of a dilemma. Disbanding the current security forces could carry the same risk of armed backlash that followed the decision of Paul Bremmer to disband the Iraqi military after the invasion of 2003. An administration official confirmed that the recommendations were being evaluated as part of a strategic review.

A spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Geoff Morrell, said that an American effort to retrain the Iraqi police was in process. He went on to say that Pentagon officials believed that the effort to cleanse the security forces of sectarian operatives without scrapping the whole shebang. “We’re not giving up on the Iraqi National Police,” Mr. Morrell insisted, adding that the United States and Mr. Maliki’s government were “both committed to seeing it through.”

The national police earlier this year were charged with playing a major role in providing security in neighborhoods after the areas were cleared of insurgents by Iraqi and American military forces.

The police have proven that they are not up to the task.

Instead of security, sectarianism runs amok. Problems with supplies and equipment have underlied frequent complaints by U.S. military units that the national police are ineffective at best, and frequently in open alliance with dhi'ite militias that operate in many neighborhoods.

From the New York Times:

American commanders on the ground in Shiite-controlled areas of Baghdad say that the local police actively subvert efforts to loosen the grip of militias, and in some cases, attack Americans directly. One commander in northwest Baghdad said most bomb attacks against American patrols in the area this spring occurred close to police checkpoints.

Officers involved in training the national police units, which fall under the Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry, acknowledged deep problems with the police but said that they had been working methodically for months on retraining national police units to do exactly what the Jones commission is proposing — purge them of Shiite militants and install better leaders.

Officers in Iraq said in that 9 police brigade commanders and 17 battalion commanders had been relieved of duty during the course of the training effort for various acts of misconduct, in particular illegal actions of a sectarian nature as well as corruption.

Of course, attempts to redeem the hopelessly sectarian Iraqi police forces are nothing new. In fact, 2006 was dubbed "The Year of the Police" by the U.S. State Department as part of a *branding effort* that was aimed at obviating the sectarian problems that were, even then, deeply entrenched.

Some Pentagon officials have been forthright in why they are willing to discuss details of the leaked report: They hope that publicly disclosing some of the aspects of the report before it is released will defuse the impact of the findings and redirect attention to the Petraeus-Crocker-White House report due the following week.


[Crossposted from the newly-redesigned Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "A Sober Assessment of Iraqi Security Forces" >>

Sometimes this war just kicks me in the head

I have been off my game all day today. I shouldn't have come back and made that last post last night. It was the Wedding Day photo that did it.

I spent over two decades in healthcare, the last 12 years as a lab professional, and lab professionals are an integral part of the burn care team. Infections are the number one killer of burn victims, and fighting infections is a process that requires constant vigilance and painful treatment. One of the things that prevents infection is wound debridement, and the other front in that battle is plasma exchange. No one with a major burn is safe from the complication of sepsis (systemic infection) until the burn wound is completely grafted or has healed, all I.V. lines are removed, the patient is eating, all courses of antibiotics have been administered, and the patient has no fever for a few days.

Wound debridement is extremely painful, and no medication exists that can completely eliminate the pain a patient experiences during this process. I will never forget the first time I ever set foot in a burn unit, when I was in training. Those first screams I heard from the debridement tank will ring in my ears until the day I die. Last night, they came back as soon as I laid eyes on that photo. They have not abated since.

PTSD and TBI are getting a lot of press, but in a year or so, the real signature injury of this war is going to be evident, in a check-out line near you. In a conflict where the majority of fatalities and injuries are the result of explosions, you are going to see a lot of burn victims in the coming years.

And god-damnit, if you advocate another Friedman Unit now, don't you dare turn your face away then.

There's more: "Sometimes this war just kicks me in the head" >>

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Yesterday, Resident Evil brought a load of organic fertilizer to the city I call home. And I was so stunned by his craven rewrite of recent history that I posted about it. Twice. (I simply do not possess the ability to let a literary offense go, and he committed a doozy.)

The chickenhawks and war pornographers are even undertaking a $15 million advertising campaign, headed up by former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer. The ads feature as their star an enlisted soldier who issues an appeal to keep fighting. When asked about the ads and the soldier starring in them, Fleischer did not even know the young mans name. (So that right there tells you all you need to know about what these people really think about the G.I.'s in uniform. To them, they are a means to an end, and nothing more.)

Well, now that tomorrows New York Times is up on the website, I know why the knives are being sharpened for the dolschtosslegende, and I know why the spin is furious enough to separate red cells from plasma.

Tomorrow morning, a new intelligence assessment called “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability” will be released. I would say that it is likely to offer a grim forecast, but that would be too optimistic by at least half.

From the Times:

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report will not be issued until Thursday, and spokesmen for both the White House and the director of national intelligence declined to comment. “The report says that there’s been little political progress to date, and it’s very gloomy on the chances for political progress in the future,” said one Congressional official with knowledge of its contents.

The new report also concludes that the American military has had success in recent months in tamping down sectarian violence in the country, according to officials who have read it.

The report, which was intended to help anticipate events over the next 6 to 12 months, is “more dire in its assessments” than the administration has been in its own internal discussions, according to one senior official who has read it. But the report also warns, as Mr. Bush did on Wednesday, that an early withdrawal would lead to more chaos.

“It doesn’t take a policy position,” one official said. “But it leaves you with the sense that what we’ve been doing hasn’t been working, but we can’t let up, or it’ll get worse.”

Lovely. We can't stay, and we can't go. We can't sustain the current course of action, and we can't change. Of course, if the little idiot would admit publicly that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and if he had it to do over again, he wouldn't, it would be a cathartic start. But bear in mind, I am more likely to be appointed pope than he is to admit an error.

Someone give me a valium and a stiff drink. That will keep my head from exploding, and I'll think about it tomorrow when I get back to Tara.

There's more: "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" >>

Levin and Warner are back from Iraq, and they have a bleak assessment

Senators Levin and Warner, Chairman and former Chairman/ second ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, respectively, are back from Iraq, and they have a grim assessment of the situation there. So grim, in fact, that Levin openly called for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al-Maliki. "I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters upon his return from a three-day trip to Iraq and Jordan. He and ranking Republican member of the committee Sen. John W. Warner (Va) embarked on a hastily arranged trip to Iraq last Friday in advance of the report on the war due in less than four weeks after the Mighty Wurlitzer cranked up last week.

Via McClatchy:

In a joint statement, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee's chairman, and John Warner, R-Va., the committee's senior Republican, said that while a surge of U.S. troops had tamped down violence in some parts of Baghdad, there was no sign of political reconciliation between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite rivals and "we are not optimistic about the prospects." They said U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker shared their views.

Levin later told reporters during a conference call from Tel Aviv that he believed the Iraqi parliament should replace Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. "The Maliki government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders," Levin said.

Levin said he and Warner spent two hours with Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, but that Petraeus didn't say what he planned to recommend about U.S. Iraq policy in a much-anticipated report to Congress next month.

The Maliki government, still clung to desperately by Resident Evil as "the last chance for this government to solve the Iraqi political crisis" is on the verge of collapse. Enough cabinet members have withdrawn from the government that a quorum can not be reached by the cabinet to advance legislation to the parliament to be debated and voted on.

Levin’s statement is the strongest open condemnation of the Maliki attempt at governance yet by an American lawmaker.

al Maliki is a Shiite, and he spent many years in exile in Iran when Iraq was under the control of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, and indeed has a closer relationship with the Iranian government than the current occupant would prefer.

In recent days, al Maliki has been trying to conjure a summit with rival Sunni politicians and ethnic Kurdish officials in an attempt to come to compromise positions on several issues, including the Exxon Mobile Enrichment Act Oil Sharing Law.

Should he prove unable to bring the summit together in the coming days, Levin and Warner said, "[T]he Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Iraqi people need to judge the Government of Iraq's record and determine what actions should be taken -- consistent with the Iraqi Constitution -- to form a true unity government to meet those responsibilities."

There's more: "Levin and Warner are back from Iraq, and they have a bleak assessment" >>

It’s like the 750’s all over again*

Shia militants signify their willingness to be martyred by wearing funeral shrouds.

It is not exactly “news” that the Iraqi army and police forces are heavily infiltrated by Shia militias, especially Jaish al Mahdi, nor is it surprising to anyone who has more than passing knowledge of the history of the region.

The Iraqi police and military forces are not simply infiltrated by Shia militiamen, they are infested – to the point that they have managed to apply sufficient political pressure to commanders that, on at least one occasion, they were able to create their own army units, staffed with its own Jaish al Mahdi fighters.

The units were disbanded in May, but like the oil in the pasta pot, it quickly came back together once the heat was off. The commander became the head of a new battalion, but the troops in his command didn’t really change all that much…

One Mahdi Army loyalist, a policeman by day and a militant after the sun goes down, was forthright about discussing the reality "There is a Mahdi Army member in every family and in every home across Iraq and the military is not exempt. The army wouldn't go after the Mahdi Army because many elements in the army are Mahdi Army. Here in Sadr City for example, there is one company and 35 of them are Mahdi Army."

Men like him, who seem to seamlessly lead dual lives, represent perhaps the greatest challenges faced by the American forces as they struggle to assemble and train non-sectarian security forces in the occupied country. They quietly, surreptitiously, go about their business of undoing the seeming advances toward a non-sectarian security apparatus.

The Sadr movement has used Iraqi soldiers and national police officers to push deeper into predominantly Sunni Arab districts in west Baghdad, U.S. Army officers said. It also swayed the leadership of an Iraqi army battalion in the spring to mount strikes in Fadil, a Sunni district in east Baghdad, the U.S. officers said.

The nexus has included soldiers carrying out killings or turning a blind eye as Sadr fighters slip through checkpoints. In late March, in the early phase of the U.S. military buildup, a Mahdi fighter who gave his name as Abu Haidar bragged to The Times that Iraqi army officers had provided vehicles to his group to carry out executions. "We have a deal with the Iraqi army and police," he said.

Last fall, Iraqi soldiers looked on as Shia militants forced thousands of Sunni families out of their homes in the western neighborhood of Hurriya in the wake of a bomb attack in Sadr City. A few weeks after the Hurriya neighborhood was cleansed of Sunnis, an Iraqi commander and four other officers were arrested, only to be released a week later. The very day they were released, the Lt. Colonel in the Iraqi army who had filed the statement that led to the arrests was shot dead at a checkpoint.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a U.S. intelligence officer was as plainspoken as the Iraqi policman/militant "We've slowed them down, but they are still slowly expanding their reach. Jaish al Mahdi expansion is taking place. Like water, they are going to find a crack and move through the weakest area."

*The 750’s signify the point when the Sunni-Shia split became an unbridgeable chasm. The Battle of Zab in Egypt occurred then, and so did the murder of Jaffar. The murder of Jaffar was the final treachery and precipitated the final split between the Shia and the faction that would later come to be known as Sunnis.

There's more: "It’s like the 750’s all over again*" >>

So…Why are we waiting for Petraeus?

You know how the Resident keeps saying that we should sit back on our heels and wait for what Petraeus and Crocker have to say come September?

Yeah…about that…Petraeus and Crocker aren’t even writing the report that will bear their names.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

So someone tell me again why we are waiting for Petraeus and Crocker to deliver Georgies foredrawn conclusions?

One “senior administration official” – speaking on condition of anonymity, of course – said that the process had put the administration in “uncomfortable positions” because they can’t decide what constitutes “satisfactory progress.”

In July, when the interim report was being written, some officials were encouraging the telling of blatant lies, by claiming progress where none existed. They urged the administration to claim success on the Exxon-Mobile Enrichment Act er, Oil Sharing Law, in spite of the fact there had been no agreement reached.

At least some insiders argued against telling the big lie, claiming it would be disingenuous. "There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,' " the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.' "

A DoD official who has been skeptical of the escalation from the outset said he expects Petraeus to emphasize military progress, such as “improving security in Baghdad” and a reduction in the number of suicide attacks. But how does that translate to political progress? How does that improve the day-to-day lives of the Iraqi people? "Who cares how many neighborhoods of Baghdad are secured?" the official said. "Let's talk about the rest of the country: How come they have electricity twice a day, how come there is no running water?"

There's more: "So…Why are we waiting for Petraeus?" >>