Twenty-One Americans Died in Iraq on Saturday

The Pentagon announced that a Marine was killed in fighting in Anbar province, and five American soldiers were killed in a firefight in Karbala. Two more were killed in roadside bombing incidents in Ninevah and North Baghdad on Saturday.

It was also announced that a U.S. Helicopter went down in Diyala province carrying 13 passengers and crew members and all perished. The announcement was not accompanied by the usual disclaimer that the craft was not shot down, leading most to speculate that it came under fire and was lost to hostility, rather than error or malfunction.

Get used to double-digit death statistics as the escalation gets underway and Americans engage in hostilities with the native population more frequently. Personally, I stashed a couple of Valium for the day we lose an entire Unit. I dread it, but I see it coming, as sure as aWol is a feckless loser who has never done one right thing in his entire miserable, wasted life.

[Updated at 8:30 p.m. on 20 January 2007 to reflect latest information.]

[Update: We were lied to by our government in an eerie shades-of-Vietnam way. Four of the five soldiers who were supposedly killed in Karbala defending their position were in fact kidnapped and executed, their bodies found 25 miles away. The attackers passed themselves off as Americans to get into position to storm the government meeting. This indicates they had insider information passed to them. Now American soldiers have to wonder if the Americans coming toward them are indeed Americans.]

And it's on...

The gloves came off today. Nancy Pelosi came right out and said publicly that Bush is in such a hurry to insert more troops into Iraq because he knows that Congress won't cut off funding for troops already in the field.

The White House fired back, calling the Speaker's remarks "poisonous" and denying the political nature of Bush's escalation, insisting the president is ordering the troops in because he thinks it's right, not for political reasons.

Bush "has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder." Pelosi said at the National Press Club earlier today. Her salvo came as former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, said the escalation would be counterproductive, delaying the pace of training Iraqi security personnel, and delaying the exit of American forces from Iraq. "You delay the date of completion of the training mission. You delay the date of handing responsibility to the Iraqis. You delay the date of departure of U.S. troops" from the region, Hamilton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the buildup.

Meantime, Republican Senators were getting together and parsing the wording of the non-binding resolution and making slight edits to the text that would allow them to cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats when it comes up in the Senate next week.

As for me, I'm ready for the Democrats to start fighting. Hubert Humphry Democrats didn't restore the majority. Harry Truman Democrats, however, are experiencing a resurgence. And not a moment too soon!

Liberal Hawks Take Note

Ever since the election and the repudiation of the war, the "liberal hawks" have had their panties in a twist. They really can't stand that the anti-war left was right, so they are doing all kinds of logical gymnastics to avoid sucking it up and admitting the error of their ways. The meme seems to be that since some of the voices in objection that were right were right for the "wrong" reasons, they don't deserve credit for being right.

Did you get that?

What bullshit reasoning that is.

I am the kind of person who, if I am wrong, I will admit it, set it right, and clarify the record. The hallmark of liberalism is, after all, the ability to change ones mind as evidence indicates.

It was bad enough when the other side questioned our patriotism and jeered at us, and all the while we were right. Now, four years later, it's obvious we were right, and the so-called liberal hawks who should be coming to us hat in hand and begging our forgiveness are instead making excuses why they need not accord those of us who were fucking right the entire time any respect or acknowledgement that we were right.

As far as I'm concerned, every last one of those used tools can go be Republicans. That whole election we had was about accountability. Either get some or get out.

Hillary Comes Back from Iraq, Speaks Out Against Escalation

I awoke this morning to NPR and Hillary Clinton talking about her just-concluded trip to Iraq, and she is saying things I want to hear.

• She opposes the presidents proposed escalation and she wants to cap the number of troops deployed to Iraq.
• She wants to set conditions for the Iraqi government and put political benchmarks in place that must be met.
• She proposes that American troops be repositioned out of Baghdad and that American forces begin to pull back out of Iraq.
• She stated explicitly that we need to concentrate on Afghanistan and bolster troop numbers there in preparation for the upcoming Taliban spring offensive.(emphasis mine)

It will surprise no one that I agree with the Senator, since the only thing she is proposing that I haven't is the part about capping troop numbers - and I smacked my forehead for overlooking it as soon as she said it.

Don't get me wrong - this does not redeem her in my eyes. She still helped us get into this clusterfuck, and I not only won't support her in the primaries, I will work vehemently against her; for that reason alone. I won't be forgetting that she was wrong and we were right, and I will be reminding everyone of that at every turn between now and when the election cycle gets going in earnest.

But on the other hand...Hawks deserting the cause is a necessary step in the process. I welcome them aboard, but they better be chastened because God Damnit, when you are this wrong, and the consequences are this big, you don't get a Mulligan.

80 Killed in Baghdad as Violence Flares

The aftermath of today’s attack at a university in Baghdad.

Lest anyone think that the mere mention of a troop increase by the Decider quelled the violence, as I have heard suggest in various comment threads on bigger and busier blogs.

In the past, the first three months of the year have been the quietest and least violent, but this year the violence does not seem to be slacking.

SO what are you doing January 27th? Will you be Standing Up? I hope so. 150,000 American troops and 26 million Iraqi civilians are counting on you to Stand Up to stop the insanity being perpetrated by an insane president.

U.N. Estimates 34,000 Iraqis Died Violent Deaths in 2006

I really don't want to hear any denials. The U.N. numbers are based on public record surveys and those are notoriously accurate sources. You don't get to pick apart the Lancet study because it didn't have enough public record backup and then reject a subsequent study that relies heavily on those sources. Besides that, the Iraq Study Group Report (if Bush ignored it so actively, it must be right) found that Iraqi violence is under reported.

DEATH SQUAD KILLINGS

• According to the latest U.N. report, based on data from hospitals compiled by the Health Ministry and from the Baghdad morgue, 6,376 civilians were killed in the last two months of 2006 -- comprising 3,462 in November and 2,914 in December.
• Of 4,731 people killed in Baghdad in November and December, Magazzeni said most died of gunshot wounds -- an indication they were victims of individual death squad killings, not bombings.
• Though Baghdad is the epicenter of violence, the U.N. report said increasing violence in typically less restive provinces such as Mosul illustrated the overall deterioration in security.
• It said more than 470,000 Iraqis had fled their homes and now claim refuge within Iraq since the February bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that prompted a surge in violence. Many more do not register or have fled the country altogether.
• A roadside bomb followed by a blast from a motorcycle rigged with explosives killed 15 people and wounded 70 near a Sunni mosque in central Baghdad on Tuesday, an interior ministry source said. Two more bombs in the capital killed 10 people.
• University students were among the dead in a car bombing that killed 10 people and wounded 25.

The violence is showing no signs of abating in the wake of Bush's proposed escalation ("surge" and "augmentation" do not appear in the Army's dictionary of military terms) and the botched hanging of two more of Saddam Hussein's aids.

This is a civil war, and therefore it is impossible for us to "win" so what the fuck are we doing? It's surreal to me that we are not only staying mired in Iraq, but the president stubbornly - stupidly - insists on escalating the numbers of troops involved, at the expense of the war in Afghanistan.

This is wrong, people, and it's up to us - the literal you and the literal me - to do something about it. It's our country, and I want it back. Have you written your congressional delegation to express your outrage?

What are your plans for Saturday, January 27th? Can you get to Washington? If there is any way in hell you can get to Washington D.C. to take part in the protest, GO. If not, participate in a local rally. Write letters to the editor like the three people in the post below did. We can't be silent, we have to act.

Now is the time to stand up.

People are Standing Up

Today in the Kansas City Star, the following three letters to the editor lead off. Powerful stuff.

How many more will die?

There is a wall in Washington, a long, black wall of marbled panels inscribed with more than 58,000 names of the long dead. Many of us who did not die have walked that wall, still burdened with loss and guilt. We remember the rain and mud, and the sweat and blood, that sucked at our boots until we thought we were in a quagmire that we might never return from.

Now a much smaller number of names – more than 3,000 so far — are unrecorded and unremembered in spite of their sacrifice and loss. But what if those names were etched each day upon their own panel as they fell? How long must we walk past as each name is etched into stone? How many days, weeks, years?

And now we are called to watch as more names are to be added. Those who return will remember their boots sinking into the sands of Iraq as the hot winds of hate swirl. And for what?

Surely the Iraqis say, “When the Americans leave, then we will sort all of this out.” Would we not say and do the same if our country was occupied?

Still, the chiseler etches our brothers’ and sisters’ names into eternity, one by one, until the war is done.

**********************************************

Bring our troops home

Congress has a duty to enforce the will of the American people. Legislators should withhold more funding for the war but provide funds to bring our military people home. It would be a travesty to afford this administration’s personally selected corporate gluttons further opportunities to pig out at their sumptuous Iraqi banquet financed by U.S. tax dollars.

Congress must not toady to the president’s strategies this time. It would be akin to the same self-serving fear that gave the president power to go to war. Our nation’s leaders should quit pretending our soldiers are occupying Iraq as peacekeepers. They’re targets.

Trying to mend Iraq, this country with a seething history of political and religious division, is as senseless as working a jigsaw puzzle in a tornado.

**********************************************

Forget about ‘winning’ war

Last Wednesday night, President Bush made another proposal on what to do in Iraq. Generally speaking, the American public probably didn’t buy it. May I make a suggestion that I don’t believe has ever been tried and could be successful?

In simple terms, it is a strategy of intelligently managing the always inevitable societal disorder. As an example, isn’t that what a good police department does? The police department doesn’t ever “win” a war against criminal activity because it can’t. It just manages the disorder.

So in Iraq (and everywhere) the United States should forget “winning” any war against insurgents or terrorists. We should analyze the disorder and figure out intelligent methods of combating it militarily and politically. Ultimately, the disorder will subside, Iraqi society can rule again, and we can safely say goodbye.

And later in the week, they are running my letter about the new oil law that was written for western oil interests. We are pissed. And a pissed off electorate is one of the few things that truly has the power to change the world.

So change the fucking world already. These words used to be a bumper sticker, but no longer. Now they are a rallying cry...

If not us, who?

If not now, when?

It's Time to Stand Up

Americans, that is, not Iraqis. We are well into "fitness to serve territory" and it is up to us - you and me and the rest of the country who feels like we do - to put an end to this insanity.

This president will never resign and we can not abide two more years. He is pathologically bent on a Revelations inspired vision of the world, bringing about Armageddon. His pathologies regarding the middle east dovetail nicely with the interests of his friends in big oil.

We have reached a point where it is undeniable. The campaign to remove this feckless leader from office starts NOW.

On January 27th, there will be a rally on the mall in Washington against this presidents plans to escalate our involvement in the Iraqi civil war. If there is any way possible that you can get to Washington, GO. If you can't get to Washington, attend a rally in your area. If you can't attend a rally, write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Write your Senator's and Representatives. Educate yourselves and talk to your neighbors and friends and co-workers. Don't just accept this.

America was not founded by those who meekly accepted their lot, and this American has no intention of meekly accepting her lot now.

My peers and I have changed the world before and I'm game to give it another go. We got a Nuclear Freeze and we ended Apartheid. We have had the playbook for years, and now we have the netroots, so what the hell is stopping us? Only our own inaction.

We had an election to set things right, and the president refuses to acknowledge it. We want change, we voted for change and he insists on giving us more of the same plus 20%. Bullshit. I won't abide it and neither should you. Our children are the ones who will pay the price for this folly. Those who serve will pay in blood and those who do not will pay the tab to China when it comes due.

The ramifications of this presidents actions are too far reaching and too universally against the interests of the American people and it is up to us to stop it.

It's time to stand up.

Brits Drawing Down in Iraq?

George Bush stubbornly forges on with his wacky scheme to stabilize a country of 26 million who all want us gone with an additional 21,500 troops; refusing to acknowledge the opposition in congress, the opposition by the American people, the dissension in the ranks or to even the fact that he was rebuked in an election a mere two months ago.

It's a shell-game really. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the quietest months have been the first 1/2 Friedman Unit, so when they say "We'll know in a couple of months whether it's working." you know damned good and well they are looking at those stats and playing the timing angle, trying to capitalize on anything they can grasp onto.

But it gets better than mere mendacity on the part of the Bush administration. While we are escalating, the Brits are ginning up to draw down.

If Bush goes ahead with a troop buildup in Iraq, with some of those troops culled from the fight in Afghanistan, here is what I I fear happening:

• The Harper Government falls in Canada and the next government will withdraw from the NATO effort in Afghanistan.
• The British start withdrawing from Iraq, leaving the United States to pretty much go it alone in major combat operations.
• The number of Americans killed in battle will rise to 150-200 per month. I hope it doesn't go higher.
• Within 30 days of escalated conflict, a unit will get cut off in Sadr City and be lost. It will be the Blackhawk Down moment we have been fearing.

That's just some of what I see coming out of the Dionysian little moron's grand scheme for escalation of hostilities. I hope like hell I'm wrong, but I am pessimistic. Nothing these jackals have suggested thus far has worked. I see no sense to trust them again. In fact, I would prefer to see the lot of them in a dock at The Hague, standing trial for war crimes.

Surging the wrong direction

Somehow, the Republicans managed to paint the Democrats as wanting to surrender the "War on Terror" because we see the folly of continued involvement of American forces in Iraq.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is time to set the record straight.

The war in Iraq and the War on Terror are far from the same thing. In fact, I would argue that their respective circles barely overlap. Iraq is a sectarian civil war and American forces are caught in the crossfire. The front in the War on Terror is located on the other side of Iran, in Afghanistan.

They keep asking for a Democratic plan. Fine. This Democrat has one. The first thing we do is get our diplomats together with Iranian diplomats and we agree to stop meddling around on their borders if they will stop meddling in Iraq. (And make Juan Cole one of the Diplomats we send.) Acknowledge that the location of American combat forces on two of her borders has something to do with Iran's sudden interest in developing nuclear weapons. Especially when it is established fact that a lot of American commando activity has been going on in Iran below the CNN line. I understand their motivation because I can read a map.

The next thing we do is start pulling brigades back to Kuwait and let them rest up and have some leave. Reduce forces in Iraq by 10,000 a month, and when they are rested, add them to the NATO effort in Afghanistan, where 21,500 additional troops would make a real difference.

I accept that Iraq is a disaster no matter what, and can't be won militarily. It is an apostacy that 3000 Americans have died in an unnecessary war. But I am not willing to lose Afghanistan too.

But that is what is certain to happen if we continue focusing on Iran, and if we lose Afghanistan, then literally, the terrorists win. (That might be the only time those words have been used properly.)

As it stands, all signs point to a Taliban re-emergence in Afghanistan in the spring, and that comes in February in the south.

It is time for us to put Afghanistan at the forefront. I support the justified and justifiable war, but I can't support the vanity war George W. Bush is intent on pursuing to the bitter end in Iraq. It is time we all take a hard look at reality, and not just the parts we want to see, and start making some hard choices. And it is time we started framing the issues.

cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose

Meet the Mediterranean

The Mediterranean Region - Great Food and Bad Blood

Too many people are woefully ignorant of the part of the world we have squandered so much blood and treasure over for the last five years...Not the people who read this blog, of course, but the readers of this blog are painfully aware of that tragic fact.

The region is steeped in history and historic rivalries. The history of the region predates the overthrow of the Shah and the seizing of the American Embassy. It predates the Munich Olympics massacre. It predates the overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh by a CIA-backed coup. It even predates the British Mandate!

The people of that region have fought over scarce resources and religion for thousands of years, and the rest of the world pretty much ignored the Middle East and left them to their internecine rivalries.

And then some British geologist discovered oil in the region, and the race was on...

Who could meddle first, who could meddle best, who could meddle most effectively, and who could screw the natives the hardest? (It was nearly always the British, for the record. Those Brits really knew how to run an empire back in the day.)

For a century now the western world has been sticking their noses into the affairs of the region, overthrowing heads of state, hoarding the regions one resource and in general, sowing all manner of ill-will and planting the seeds for a bumper-crop of hatred and animosity among the people of the region.

Sending more troops into a region we should be withdrawing from is folly. Instead of extracting them from this clusterfuck, the president wants to send in even more and ramp up the death and destruction, and that is criminal.

What the hell kind of sense did it ever make to declare war and send in the military to fight a transitive verb, anyway?

I'm Underwhelmed

Remember when the mission was accomplished? Hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of dead Americans, one live dictator and a civil war ago?

Ah, the good ole days.

The president just addressed the nation from the White House library. He needed to offer a healthy dose of reality and determination, and he needed to offer specifics and accept responsibility. He didn't pull off the first two at all; and he only hinted at the last two. For instance - specifics - here are his "specifics" for restoring security to Baghdad.

1. Clear and secure neighborhoods.
2. Help and protect the Iraqi people.
3. Train Iraqi security forces.
4. Increase Activity against Iranian actors.
5. Increase naval strength in the Gulf.
   

Never forget - the number of troops he calls for we have had in-country in the past, and we have always engaged in clearing and securing neighborhoods, and we have always (supposedly) held as part of the mission assisting the Iraqi people, and we have been trying to train Iraqi security personnel since day one, so I didn't hear anything new and inspiring that would lead me to believe that this time it will work! This time for sure! We have been engaging Iran, in case you didn't know, and for the first time in my life all seven Carrier Strike Groups are at sea...But they have been since late last summer. For the first time ever, all are in the east and middle east.

Interesting times indeed.

There were two things that deeply disturbed me in the choice of words his PNAC-lovin' speechwriters went with. It really sounded like he was taking sides in the civil war. The Saudi's can't be happy right now. Bet you cash money Bandar is on his way to Washington right this very minute. He probably watched the speech from the runway in his private luxury jet, and they started to taxi the second those words were spoken.

I also noticed that he didn't metion that troops will be pulled from Afghanistan and repositioned in Iraq. He did say something about the brave men and women who freed Afghanistan from the grip of the terrorists, and we couldn't let them re-group in Iraq.

Newsflash! They have regrouped and they are re-emerging in Afghanistan. So apparently the terrorists can have Afghanistan, but hands off Iraq...

Oh yeah - the oil's in Iraq.

Un.Fucking.Believable

(I originally intended to write two posts. One telling the right-wing punditocracy to go Cheney themselves, we have every right to be angry and ill-tempered, and another about the obscenity of moving troops out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Somehow I segued from one to the other in one post. And then I got started, and I tied obscenity and profainity up in a single bow.)

The right-wing punditocracy has been clucking about the profanity of the left-wing blogosphere lately. I guess you complain about your opponents methods when you've been absolutely fucking wrong about everything for six years. I figuratively moon them while blowing a kazoo and send up a rousing fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I can't swear to it, but I think that's what Ben Franklin would do, and that's good enough for me.

If you can't use profanity when you are talking about an obscenity, when the fuck can you use it?

The war in Iraq is an obscenity. The idea of a troop buildup is an obscenity. Turning away from the justifiable conflict in Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban to re-emerge in that country is an obscenity. And taking troops from Afghanistan and the hunt for terrorists and moving them to Baghdad in an effort to quell the sectarian violence that has seized Iraq is a fucking obscenity.

It is also a stab-in-the-back to our allies in the war in Afghanistan who have troops there and who in good faith want to check the terrorist threat. It's a big ole "fuck you!" to the Canadians, Dutch, British, French, Germans, Italians, Portugese, Spanish, Australians, Norwegians, Pakistanis, Czechs and New Zealanders - just off the top of my head. There are several more. And by pulling troops from Afghanistan and repositioning them in Baghdad exactly the opposite of what should be happening we are personally insulting every head of state who committed troops and every allied troop who has served in the conflict. Even fucking obscene isn't quite strong enough.

And how timely! Frank Luntz is on Fresh Air chastising left-wing bloggers for being angry. What the fuck do you expect? When you have been absolutely right about everything for the last six years...and had your patriotism questioned and general threats made against your safety for having the audacity to be right...about absolutely everything, lets see how fucking nice you are about it all. If you are squealing like bitches now, I am investing in earplug futures.

Oh! And lest you think we on the left have anger cornered, I give you a post reader/commenter Apollo 13 left at Political Animal

When Marla Ruzicka, the founder of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, was killed by a car bomb in Iraq, Little Green Football-ers just had to comment:

It’s probably George Bush’s fault for letting her wander around Iraq instead of putting her in a gulag.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer tool.

Oh, I know what’s next. Her parents will sue the car manufacturer, or maybe the tire maker.

There’s no better useful idiot than a dead useful idiot.

Nominate her for the Mincemeat/Pull-Yourself-Together Award

At least the moonbat parents aren’t yet saying "they killed their best friend."

I can guess what color her eyes were! BLEW!

I’m having another drink to celebrate another moonbat meeting a well deserved demise.

She went from "peace" activist to piece activist.

Another moonbat bitch slapped by reality....

And Hugh Hewitt had the audacity to say of the lefty blogosphere: "They are training a generation of young Democratic activists to be angry, vulgar, profane, and cruel."

So not only does the Wingnutosphere get it wrong, it's not so well-mannered.
Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 9, 2007 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

And then there's this: Our wingnuts don't send your hate-peddlers fake anthrax. Domestic terrorism seems to be the province of the wingnuts on the right. But the FBI infiltrates the Quakers.

Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire

The rise in troop numbers could reduce the urgency for political effort

--by Wesley Clark
Published: 07 January 2007
The Independent

The odds are that President George Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional US troops in Iraq. But why? Will this deliver a "win"? The answers: a combination of misunderstanding and desperation; and, probably not.

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

As for the US troops, yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would enable more roadblocks, patrols, neighbourhood clearing operations and overnight presence. But how significant will this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq - in Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops, so adding 20,000 seems too little, too late, even, for Baghdad. Further, in a "clear and hold" strategy, US troops have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be "held", or even that they are fully "cleared". The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required for a city of more than five million with no reliable police - nor have the Iraqi troops been reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Achieving enhanced protection for the population is going to be problematic at best. Even then, militia fighters in Baghdad could redeploy to other areas and continue the fight there.

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

There could be other uses for troops, for example, accelerating training for the Iraqi military and police. But even here, vetting these forces for their loyalty has proven problematic. Therefore, neither accelerated training nor more troops in the security mission can be viewed mechanistically, as though a 50 per cent increase in effort will yield a 50 per cent increased return, for other factors are at work.

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; Syria and Iran were mentioned as the next targets. Small wonder then that Syria and Iran have worked continuously to meddle in Iraq. They had reason to believe that if US action succeeded against Iraq, they would soon be targets themselves. Dealing with meddling neighbours is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts, patrols and threatening statements. Iran has thus far come out the big winner in all of this, dispensing with long-time enemy Saddam, gaining increased influence in Iraq, pursuing nuclear capabilities and striving to enlarge further its reach. The administration needs a new strategy for the region now, urgently, before Iran can gain nuclear capabilities.

America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations

It's all about the light, sweet crude

Welcome to the first Energy War of the 21st century. And get used to it, because unless we change our ways in a big, big hurry, wars over energy will be a constant. They are already well on the way to becoming a way of life.

Amid the furor of civil war and sectarian strife, car bombings and executions, a piece of legislation is wending it's way through the Iraqi legislative system, and will be presented to the cabinet and parliament in a few days. Odds are it will pass with little attention paid to the matter.

That is too bad. What the new oil law - which the United States has helped draft, craft and push through - does is feather the nest of big oil. The provisions of the oil law are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, major oil players, such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to make contracts that lock up access to oil reserves for up to 30 years.

Iraq is the third-largest oil reserve in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran operate tightly-controlled nationalized oil companies. Iraqi oil production was nationalized from 1972 until the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq is over an oil barrel. Two decades of war and sanctions have decimated the oil infrastructure. Refineries, pumping stations, pipelines - all are in disrepair. Massive investment will be required, of that there is no doubt. This need for infrastructure will drive the PSA's to be weighted in the favor of the big-oil giants who will be entering in to the contracts with the Iraqi government.

The PSA's would allow the large foreign oil companies to retain about 75% of all revenues realized on the sale of Iraqi crude oil. Control over the third largest oil reserves on the planet will be in the hands of the petroleum industry, virtually unchecked. The civil war that foments desperation today will end, hopefully long before those oil contracts will, and soon after hostilities cease, the makers of those contracts will start to feel cheated - with no mechanism for remediation.

It is a bad piece of legislation, and that the United States had a hand in generating it is a disgrace, and proof enough that the peaceniks with their "No Blood for Oil" signs were absolutely right from the very beginning.

It turns out, it was that simple afterall.

Considering the Shake-up in Progress

A visual to help you keep it all straight...

As the presidential pathologies become manifest, the president goes shopping. General-shopping, that is. Let me elaborate - in health care, you get a special orientation if you have any contact with psychiatric patients. What this additional training boils down to is this: Sociopathic patients shop the staff for those that can be manipulated and taken in. What the president is doing is a version of this, but he is in the position of power. When he got push-back on his grand scheme for an escalation, he went shopping, and now Dave Petraeus is on his way to Iraq and a fourth star.

I have never met Petraeus, but I know a couple of people who have, and they are quick to point out that his second adventure in Mesopotamia wasn't as successful as his first. They also point out that he is a right prick; but most Officers are, and I've never met a General who wasn't, so that's a moot point.

Moving Fallon to the DNI post is a move that gives me a bit of pause. He is highly regarded as a regional conflict analyst and when I envision him in that post, I envision bombs falling on Iran. You put an Admiral in that post when you have plans for the Navy to get in on the action, probably bombing runs launched from carriers in the gulf, as ground forces aren't available for an overland assault. I have no illusion that he will fail the confirmation process, but I hope a lot of tough questions get asked in the vetting, and I hope a lot of questions about Iran are driven home. IF not, the Senators are not doing their jobs, and we will need to inundate them with emails and calls demanding answers.

I have no faith that these Dionysian followers of Mars have any plans for peace. (Peace dividend? Please! There is so much more money to be made on war! What's a few thousand lives of less affluent Americans? Halliburton has a bottom line to consider!) They have never had a plan for security in the aftermath, and their escalation back to previous troop levels is a shell game.

It's already been tried, for the record. They are proposing we restore the troop levels to what they were when it all started to disintegrate. And let's define their "surge" before we go another step further: The "surge" they envision as solving all the problems and allowing them to "win" is really not a surge, but an overlapping of scheduled deployments. They will achieve it by holding troops currently in-theatre in Iraq beyond their scheduled exit dates, and they will step up the deployment of troops currently scheduled to deploy.

This is, by definition, not sustainable. It is a bad idea that will only serve to ramp up casualties and the sowing of anti-American hostility in the region. But it will not be enough to allow them to "win."

The Resurection of the Neocons

Someone fetch me a wooden stake and a mallet. The time is nigh to kill the Neocon movement once and for all. They have been totally, 100% wrong in absolutely everything they have engaged in up to this point so why in hell would anyone consider acting on their advice ever again? I'm still working out a just and fitting punishment for the singularly craven adherents of that particular nihilistic political philosophy.

It's the remnants of the Neocon movement (like Bill Kristol) firmly ensconced at think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who are behind the call for a troop buildup and escalation of hostilities. That, in and of itself, is sufficient grounds to reject the notion as feckless folly.

And since I brought up the AEI, lets have some new rules for just who exactly gets to call themselves a think tank, whaddya say? For instance, if you have been irrefutably wrong in every policy position you have advocated, you don't get to call yourself a think tank. Likewise, if you advocated a preemptive war and scornfully disregarded warnings that a civil war would be the end result, you don't get to call yourself a think tank.

Personally, I can't get over the chutzpah. The good ship Neocon proved less seaworthy than the SS Minnow and Gilligan looked like Admiral Nelson in contrast to the abilities of the neocons to write and enact policy.

Getting the Middle East Back on Our Side

By BRENT SCOWCROFT

Published: January 4, 2007
The New York Times

THE Iraq Study Group report was released into a sea of unrealistic expectations. Inevitably, it disappointed hopes for a clear path through the morass of Iraq, because there is no “silver bullet” solution to the difficulties in which we find ourselves.

But the report accomplished a great deal. It brought together some of America’s best minds across party lines, and it outlined with clarity and precision the key factors at issue in Iraq. In doing so, it helped catalyze the debate about our Iraq policy and crystallize the choices we face. Above all, it emphasized the importance of focusing on American national interests, not only in Iraq but in the region.

However, the report, which calls the situation in Iraq “grave and deteriorating,” does not focus on what could be the most likely outcome of its analysis. Should the Iraqis be unable or unwilling to play the role required of them, the report implies that we would have no choice but to withdraw, and then blame our withdrawal on Iraqi failures. But here the report essentially stops.

An American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president, “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself” would be a strategic defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences both in the region and beyond. Our opponents would be hugely emboldened, our friends deeply demoralized.

Iran, heady with the withdrawal of its principal adversary, would expand its influence through Hezbollah and Hamas more deeply into Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Jordan. Our Arab friends would rightly feel we had abandoned them to face alone a radicalism that has been greatly inflamed by American actions in the region and which could pose a serious threat to their own governments.

The effects would not be confined to Iraq and the Middle East. Energy resources and transit choke points vital to the global economy would be subjected to greatly increased risk. Terrorists and extremists elsewhere would be emboldened. And the perception, worldwide, would be that the American colossus had stumbled, was losing its resolve and could no longer be considered a reliable ally or friend — or the guarantor of peace and stability in this critical region.

To avoid these dire consequences, we need to secure the support of the countries of the region themselves. It is greatly in their self-interest to give that support, just as they did in the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict. Unfortunately, in recent years they have come to see it as dangerous to identify with the United States, and so they have largely stood on the sidelines.

A vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict could fundamentally change both the dynamics in the region and the strategic calculus of key leaders. Real progress would push Iran into a more defensive posture. Hezbollah and Hamas would lose their rallying principle. American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states would be liberated to assist in stabilizing Iraq. And Iraq would finally be seen by all as a key country that had to be set right in the pursuit of regional security.

Arab leaders are now keen to resolve the 50-year-old dispute. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel may be as well. His nation’s long-term security can only be assured by resolving this issue once and for all. However, only the American president can bring them to the same table.

Resuming the Arab-Israeli peace process is not a matter of forcing concessions from Israel or dragooning the Palestinians into surrender. Most of the elements of a settlement are already agreed as a result of the negotiations of 2000 and the “road map” of 2002. What is required is to summon the will of Arab and Israeli leaders, led by a determined American president, to forge the various elements into a conclusion that all parties have already publicly accepted in principle.

As for Syria and Iran, we should not be afraid of opening channels of communication, but neither should we rush to engage them as negotiating “partners.” Moreover, these two countries have differing interests, expectations and points of leverage and should not be treated as though they are indistinguishable.

Syria cannot be comfortable clutched solely in the embrace of Iran, and thus prying it away may be possible. Syria also has much to gain from a settlement with Israel and internal problems that such a deal might greatly ease. If we can make progress on the Palestinian front before adding Syria to the mix, it would both avoid overloading Israel’s negotiating capacity and increase the incentives for Damascus to negotiate seriously.

Iran is different. It may not be wise to make Iran integral to the regional strategy at the outset. And the nuclear issue should be dealt with on a separate track. In its present state of euphoria, Iran has little interest in making things easier for us. If, however, we make clear our determination, and if the other regional states become more engaged in stabilizing Iraq, the Iranians might grow more inclined to negotiate seriously.

WHILE negotiations on the Arab-Israel peace process are under way, we should establish some political parameters inside Iraq that encourage moves toward reconciliation and unified government in Iraq. Other suggested options, such as an “80 percent solution” that excludes the Sunnis, or the division of the country into three parts, are not only inconsistent with reconciliation but would almost certainly pave the way to broader regional conflict and must be avoided.

American combat troops should be gradually redeployed away from intervening in sectarian conflict. That necessarily is a task for Iraqi troops, however poorly prepared they may be. Our troops should be redirected toward training the Iraqi Army, providing support and backup, combating insurgents, attenuating outside intervention and assisting in major infrastructure protection.

That does not mean the American presence should be reduced. Indeed, in the immediate future, the opposite may be true, though any increase in troop strength should be directed at accomplishing specific, defined missions. A generalized increase would be unlikely to demonstrably change the situation and, consequently, could result in increased clamor for withdrawal. But the central point is that withdrawing combat forces should not be a policy objective, but rather, the result of changes in our strategy and success in our efforts.

As we work our way through this seemingly intractable problem in Iraq, we must constantly remember that this is not just a troublesome issue from which we can walk away if it seems too costly to continue. What is at stake is not only Iraq and the stability of the Middle East, but the global perception of the reliability of the United States as a partner in a deeply troubled world. We cannot afford to fail that test.

Riverbend's year-end wrap-up from Baghdad

Every time she posts, I weep.

BIDEN OPPOSES TROOP BUILDUP

"Mr. President, this is your war." --Sen. Joseph Biden

Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and incoming chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee has stated unequivocally that he opposes any escallation or troop buildups that would insert 20-30,000 additional troops into Baghdad.

This places him firmly at odds with fellow 2008 presidential hopeful, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was one of the first to call for an escallation of troop numbers to try to quell the sectarian violence in Baghdad. The country would appear to be on Senator Biden's side, given that only 11% of Americans favor such a buildup.

"Absent some profound political announcement . . . I can't imagine there being an overwhelming, even significant support for the president's position," he told reporters during a telephone conference call Tuesday.

If the violence continues two years from now, "every one of those Republican senators — and there's 21 of them up for re- election — knows that that is likely to spell his or her doom," Biden said.

Senator Biden has already informed Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice that she appear before his committee to answer questions about the President's "new and improved" Iraq war plan as soon as it is announced next month. The Secretary has agreed.

I am glad to see Biden taking this stand, vowing to take on this fight, but then I am always glad to see Democrats show signs of spinal fortification.

What we had on November 7 was not just an election - it was an intervention. And like so many addicts, the president charmed his way out the door with words of contrition, and ten minutes later he was back on the streets, trying to score more and more powerful drugs.