It was James Baker who said that the Gulf War was about jobs. Not much of a humanitarian.
There is not ever going to be a planned way out of Iraq for the US. It is too late and the chaos that has been unleashed precludes that notion.
The US government is undermining the Iraqi government.
I do wonder if the US executive branch is trying to get the Iraqi government to fall and then place another batch of US political appointees to rule Iraq, along with the US military.
Of course, what the US executive branch does not seem to see is that if the Iraqi government falls, it is possible that the Green Zone would be destroyed by the resistance.
I don't think that the Shia, nor the Sunni factions would stand by quietly and allow the US to become the despot. They have had enough of despots.
The fat lady has sung and is ready to sing the encore.
Maude
Maude | 11.26.06 - 9:04 am | #

Is it too extreme to wonder why we're in Iraq?
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/200...11/ wtfawii.html
Vast Left | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:07 am | #

Hell, any three year old can strike a match. To put out a fire requires experience, courage, and the right equipment.
jeffreyw | 11.26.06 - 9:28 am | #

Let's face it. The Iraq Study will come to the conclusions it was designed to arrive at. It won't ask for international assistance and advice, it won't face the fact that one of Iraq's biggest problems right now is the very presence of US troops. It won't deal with the reality of civil war there now.

Baker and Co. will provide cover, if the Administration takes it, to share blame for the disaster more widely. Their goal isn't to fix Iraq, but rather to make it possible for a wider portion of the Washington Establishment to share in the coming disaster— and avoid the appearance that the coming policy shift, as slight as it may be, is being totally rammed down the throats of the American people by Bushco.

Since only a dramatic change in policy stands a scant chance of changing the dynamic in Iraq at this point, the result will predictably be a lot of hand-wringing about how the best minds couldn't avoid the 'troubles' that will result.

Of course they won't include anyone who might come to another conclusion. You're right on the money to ask why not.
Bill | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:33 am | #

Baker and Hamilton "gerrymandered" the experts only "to ratify predetermined recommendations," he wrote. "Rather than prime the debate they sought to stifle it."

For a masterful takedown of Rubin, and his complaints about the Baker/Hamilton Commission, and neocon hysteria in general, see Belgravia Dispatch at:

http:// www.belgraviadispatch.com...e_the_bake.html

As for the "centist position" on Iraq, I saw a poll this morning in which 33% of Americans favor the Iraq war, and 66% oppose it. I suspect the War Party, and its party organ WaPo, favor it.
MD | 11.26.06 - 9:35 am | #

Glenn reliably skewers the neocons who advocated "stay the course" for so long, and now disclaim any responsiblilty for the disaster that is now Iraq. So his readers will surely also want to read Ken Silverstein's article about Ken Adelman at http://harpers.org/sb-ken- adelma...1164050030.html
elef | 11.26.06 - 9:36 am | #

It would be nice if we had a measure of control over our overlords. This country is run by a collection of power-mad buffoons with billions of tax-payer dollars to spend on all sorts of exciting international escapades. The American people are just scenery.

I wish the power elite would recognize that they have failed this country. They would never admit it publicly, but they should at least admit it to themselves. From the looks of it, they are quite good at furrowing their brows, opining about their leadership abilities, and talking about how tough it is to make tough decisions.
steve_e | 11.26.06 - 9:48 am | #

I would like to know just what the makeup of the entire study group is. I know it is not balanced but exactly who is on it? I have a feeling that the people who were actually right about the war, what should have been done and the consequences of invading, are nowhere to be found in this group.

If Hamilton and Baker are the intellectual big guns in this group then just what have they been saying and writing for the last four years that qualifies them for their position? Just who in this study group has been consistently right about the reasons for the war and the consequences of an invasion and occupation? Any of them?

I know people like Webb, Gore, Clarke, and Kascinich have been amazingly prescient about the effects of a war with Iraq, are there any such people in this study group?
Paul XQ | 11.26.06 - 9:51 am | #

Soon it may not matter what Bush, the neocons, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain or a committee of Wise Men think is appropriate action in Iraq. As the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate reality may take the decisions out of the hands of the self appointed deciders. If there is a general countrywide all out civil war, as seems increasingly possible, our exposed supply lines and hardened posts in crowded cities could prove hard to defend indeed. The consensus inside Iraq might just be that the US will have to pull out very quickly to avoid losing large numbers of soldiers. The forces that are fighting each other may be increasing their attacks to strengthen their strategic positions in a post occupation Iraq. Last week's bomb attack in the Green Zone, very much under reported in the supposedly anti war US media, could have been just some early probing of that 'impregnable' bastion. God help our men and women soldiers in Iraq if the Green Zone is overrun. Some still remember "Chinese" Gordon in Khartoum though I doubt George W. Bush has ever heard of him.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:51 am | #

Has Nancy Pelosi said she wants to take all the troops out of Iraq?

There's some confusion between the idea of a "withdrawal" or an "end to the war" meaning that US troops redeploy into the safety of the permanent bases, and a policy of bringing all the troops home and eliminating the bases.

If you ignore public opinion and only look at officials' views in either party I think that the idea of genuinely pulling out of Iraq is an extremist view almost never found. For example doesn't Murtha favour only a reshuffle? And he's usually put forward as the Democrat that wants "withdrawal".
gnomes | 11.26.06 - 9:57 am | #

Gee isn't it too bad they feel like the other half of the country for the last 6 years.
Diane | 11.26.06 - 9:59 am | #

Well, one extreme position on the left side of the debate might be that the US should not only pull out of Iraq, but should initiate war crimes proceedings against various American military and government officials.

I'm not saying this position is wrong, necessarily, but it might legitimately be viewed as an extreme position.
brooksfoe | 11.26.06 - 10:00 am | #

"I would like to know just what the makeup of the entire study group is."

"The Iraq Study Group is a bipartisan group of prominent Americans supported by four premier institutions. It is led by co-chairs James A. Baker, III, the nation’s 61st Secretary of State and Honorary Chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, former Congressman and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

The other members of the study group include: Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III , Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson."

http://www.usip.org/isg/members.html

The ISG has several "working groups," each with a particular specialization.
A list of these working groups, and their members, can be found here: http://www.usip.org/isg/members.html
MD | 11.26.06 - 10:11 am | #

Did I miss projections somewhere, of what would happen after leaving ASAP?

Given the awesome brainpower assembled here, demonstrating the talent to predict what would happen in Iraq, after the fact - would anyone care to predict the ramifications of leaving? Before the fact?

Will leaving solve the civil war or make it worse? Will Iran or Syria take over the country? Will nukes be unveiled as the next generation weapon between Muslim sects?

It's interesting ot me to see how many people advocate leaving ASAP without seeming to care what happens as a result, what happens to the rest of the world as a result.
Do such people assume no potential downside exists? That there is nothing worth considering past withdrawal?
shooter242 | 11.26.06 - 10:12 am | #

Why isn't Shenseki on the list of military panelists, one might wonder? or Powell?
Baldie McEagle | 11.26.06 - 10:13 am | #

I've gotten to the point where as soon as I see an article using terms like "centrist" or "moving to the center" or "moderate" my defense mechanisms go into overtime mode. They're probably talking about somebody like Lieberman or McCain. The "center" these days is probably to the right of Atilla the Hun.
Walldon | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 10:14 am | #

Uh, shooter, I think if you go back and read all the posts slowly, word by word so you can understand them fully, you'll realize that no one here is advocating leaving immediately. Except for your rhetorical example. Please, please, please get a friggin' clue.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 10:18 am | #

glenn -

i do think there is a more "extreme" anti-war position: in addition to withdrawl - public repudiation of bush/cheney's war, fair trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity for bush/cheney/rumsfeld/et al. and reparations to iraqis.

but this postition must not be aknowledged - because then the truth would be apparent: withdrawal is the "centrist" position.
selise | 11.26.06 - 10:23 am | #

brooksfoe @ 10:00 am - you beat me to it. btw, i'm one of those who holds the "extreme" anti-war view.
selise | 11.26.06 - 10:28 am | #

I'd really like to know what the excluded anti-war "extreme view" is that is the equivalent of the neonconservative desire for endless warfare in Iraq and beyond.

Well, Glenn, if you would only read Gateway Pundit and Ann Althouse and the wisdom of John Hinderaker you’d know that the “extreme view” is that Iraq is somehow a violent place, in a civil war, and so out of control that we even need James Baker to do anything.

As the great Poweline Pundit pointed out just a couple days ago, the impression that violence has skyrocketed in the last few months is extremist anti-war propaganda, and it has, he says, “increased only slightly.” It compares, he says, with “American cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and Milwaukee.”

Now as we all know, the great military thinker Ralph Peters drove down the main road in Baghdad not long ago and saw no violence, which was proof that there was no civil war he said, “Where’s my civil war, dude?”

So, yesterday, knowing that it’s a fact that Chicago is about as violent as Iraq, I drove the entire length of Lake Shore Drive, and you know what? I didn’t see any violence at all. Now, if this is comparable to what’s going on in Iraq, as the great Hinderaker says, then we do not have a problem in Iraq that even needs James Baker to look into.

As Gateway Pundit, thus concluded, after reading Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse and, of course, John Hinderaker:


The simple fact of the matter is that the anti-war movement, many who, if you look at their histories, had no problems with the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the marxists Sandinistas--both who waged much bloodier wars that what we are currently seeing in Iraq--have FRAMED this argument to fool the American people. It is truly disgusting.

The extremist position, then, is the framing of the issue that Iraq is getting out of control.

Have I made myself clear? The war is going pretty good, even “remarkably well” if you watch it on Fox News, and read Powerline. Anything else is extemist.
Powerfool | 11.26.06 - 10:28 am | #

Powerful,

Re: your references to Powerline, et al., and their minimization of violence in Iraq:

I must have missed the IED's in Chicago the last time I was there.

Of course, everyone knows that 2,800 US soldiers have been killed in Philly over the past 3 years.

And, of course, the civil administration of Milwaukee is barricaded within its Green Zone, and visitors must wear body armor and fly in by helicopter.

It's no wonder the Pentagon has intelligence drones flying 24/7 over Chicago each day, and A-10 Warthogs strafing the suburbs on a daily basis.

And wasn't the entire staff of the Philadelphia Health Ministry kidnapped last week?

And, the UN? It evacuated New York in response to the violence, didn't it?

Some people just can't see the obvious.
MD | 11.26.06 - 10:37 am | #

I agree with Bill up thread in that the entire purpose of the Baker commission is to manage a way to make Bush administration not look as bad as they will. So pulling out will only make Bush look like a loser, so that isn't even on the table as a viable option.
cathy | 11.26.06 - 10:38 am | #

Ohmigod, we do live in the post-ironic age don't we?
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 10:43 am | #

OK, I think I should answer my own question first. Just who are the Iraq Study Group?:

James Baker; a known quantity; loyal to the Bushes

James F Dobbins; ambassador to EU under Clinton ; some military experience ; member of Rand Corporation (uh oh)

Charles W. Freeman Jr.; was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Bush 1 (uh oh) ; board of directors American Iranian Council (?); interpretor for Nixon in China

Robert M. Gates ; Iran/Contra ;cooking the intelligence books on USSR, Iran, Nelson Mandela ; no longer on ISG now headed to Sec. of Defense (uh oh)

Lee Hamilton ; Democrat; 9/11 commission; known quantity

Vernon Jordon ; black buisnessman advisor to president Clinton ; Member of the Board of Xerox, American Express, Clear Channel, Dow Jones, J.C. Penny, Lazard, Revlon, Sarah Lee, R.J. Reynolds, Union Carbide (UH OH, UH OH, UH OH)

Ed Meese ; paper schredding Reagan Attourney General ; Federalist Society; Emergency Committee to Defeat Al Gore ; The Heritage Foundation ; Hoover Institute ; thinks summary executaion for detained illegal enemy combatants is legally acceptable as they have legal rights (uh oh)

Sandra Day O' Conner ; known quantity ; not known how she feels about Iraq war

Leon Panetta ; milk-toast Democrat ; Vietnam experience ; relatively ok guy compared to the others ; Trilateral Commission

William J. Perry ; Secretary of Defense under Clinton ; Army experience

Chuck Robb ; Virginia Senator, Governor, Lt. Governor, ; Trilateral Commission ; Democrat

Alan Simpson ; Republican partisn hack ; loyal Bush supporter ; liberal hater ; how did he get in this group?

So there they are boys and girls, the saviors of civilization and Bush's legacy, in all their establishment glory.
Paul XQ | 11.26.06 - 10:48 am | #

Being the eternal optimist that I am, I hope at least one positive consequence flows from the issuance of the Baker-Hamilton report. I still don’t think the big picture debate, of what the end game is in the ME for many of the players in charge, has been properly aired out. The natural next step of the neo-conservatives, even now, is to attack Iran – they all treat it as a minor extension of current affairs, and so far, the debate of exactly what the consequences of such an action would be, haven’t taken place in the mainstream media. I would venture to bet that 80% of the people have no clue this is what the instigators of the current fiasco in the ME still are advocating. To the extent the Baker-Hamilton report, in both its discussions and conclusions, repudiates this line of thinking, or at least brings it before the public, it will have accomplished something.

post-ironic age - wouldn't that be the brass age?
JimLanc | 11.26.06 - 10:48 am | #

Ah yes, thank you MD. Gates was replaced by Lawrence Eagleburger, another stellar pick. Another great mind who can really be called on to think outside the box.
Paul XQ | 11.26.06 - 10:56 am | #

It is somewhat unclear to me why people like O'Connor and Jordan are on the panel. What knowledge on this particular issue do they bring to the table? O'Connor in particular was a late add-on.

I guess a more domestic flavor is useful. But, still, why these two in particular?
Joe | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 10:59 am | #

BEYOND who is on the ISG, who PICKED the members??
billinkansas | 11.26.06 - 11:05 am | #

That there are even 2 neo-cons on this thing is a travesty. Glenn's arson example is not strong enough. It's not just that they're proud of the raging inferno, it's that they deny the inferno exists, or that anyone could reasonably have thought that by pouring gasoline on the building and lighting it, a fire would result.

Worse, arson wasn't their intent, they were exterminators trying to solve a roach problem. Now they still brag the roaches (Saddam) are gone, and ask, "Well, would you rather that building was still roach infested?, would the world be better off?"

Shooter espouses this above. Somehow that many people on the left knew Iraq would be a debacle is not sufficient to him. Apparently our prediction coming true is just a "lucky" guess or something, while all the poor neo-cons who predicted flowers and ice cream deserve to still have their opinions taken seriously.
Dan D | 11.26.06 - 11:08 am | #

It's a meat grinder. Large, 150 lb. chunks of meat go in the hopper. Some of the meat is grain-fed and comes from Nebraska, or Iowa, or Illinois. But 99% of it is locally-grown. It comes out the other end as hamburger. There's no "OFF" switch. If there ever was control of the grinder, it's been lost.

There are two options. You can call in some mechanics and electricians. They've done some work for you before--sometimes their fix worked, sometimes it didn't. They say "Keep the meat coming--we'll try to fix this on the fly--by the way, we don't guarantee our work and there's no warrantee".

The second option is, if you've had enough hamburger, don't want any more, stop putting meat in the hopper.
casual observer | 11.26.06 - 11:14 am | #

A very good article by Charlie Savage.

Hail to the chief
Dick Cheney's mission to expand -- or 'restore' --the powers of the presidency

ANN ARBOR, MICH. -- In July 1987, then-Representative Dick Cheney, the top Republican on the committee investigating the Iran-contra scandal, turned on his hearing room microphone and delivered, in his characteristically measured tone, a revolutionary claim.

President Reagan and his top aides, he asserted, were free to ignore a 1982 law at the center of the scandal. Known as the Boland Amendment, it banned US assistance to anti-Marxist militants in Nicaragua.
thelastnamechosen | 11.26.06 - 11:20 am | #

My question is, if the Baker Group is stacked against withdrawal, what exactly are the neocons complaining about? The BG seem designed to put lipstick on their pig. Why not go along?
sunny | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 11:37 am | #

This is another in the continuing efforts to define the "centre" as "whatever I agree with"

The political sphere is littered with self-described "moderates" and "centrists" who delight in eschewing partisan ideology for the sake of being able to hold themselves above the blind partisans of either party while holding views that are often quite in line with the supposed extremists on either side. Lieberman is a perfect example.

And the centre is just an average of the two extremes. The Republicans have been pushing their right wing ever further to the right, and the democrats have pulled theirs ever towards to the supposed center, resulting in a "center" that is ever more right-wing. It's a neat trick for them, but I'm sick of the idiots who think that by being in the center, a viewpoint is somehow more legitimate. Right wing extremists are not wrong because they are extremists, they are wrong because their policy ideas are bad, and involve a theocracy, or proto-fascist state and a lot of other ideas which fail miserably for all but the richest few.

I'm not interested in finding some center between stupidity and logic, between lies and truth, between greed and a better society. Sometimes which end has which of those isn't clear, and perhaps then moderation is fine, but I reject the notion that moderation is itself a virtue, and clinging to it as a banner to prove one's "common sense" or "open mind" is a vice.

We all knew those people who try to be so cutting edge that they stop listening to a band the moment they become popular. I see "moderates" in the same light. If their view were ever fully embraced by a major party, they would abandon it to retain their status as moderates, rather than be glad the position had won over a big-tent party.
Dan D | 11.26.06 - 11:37 am | #

As far as I'm concerned, Michael Rubin and his fellow neocons can go cry in their beer. If it were up to me I'd like to see them prosecuted for embroiling us in this unsalvageable quagmire. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, and the rest of Project for a New American Century should not even be allowed to hold their heads high in civilized company. These people should be shunned by all Americans.
As I understand it there are four possible options being considered and there may be multiples of these options:
1. A 3way partition with shared oil revenues.
2. Pull back and guard the borders.
3. Diplomacy with Syria and Iran.
4. Bush and his new time table.

As recently as October 20th, Bush stated that he will stay the course,he said something like "stay in Iraq, fight in Iraq, and win in Iraq" So a new Bush timetable is basically more of the same. So in effect, we're dealing with three options.
I suspect the Bush administration will do their very best to ensure the faiure of this project. Bush is bullheadedly stubborn and believes in this war so deeply I don't think he'll buckle, even under pressure.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 11:40 am | #

The purpose of the ISG is more or less what it was for the 9/11 Commission. Namely, to convene a panel of "respected bipartisan experts" (for political and professional credibility) so that they can come up with a set of "tough" and "sensible" policy recommendations and/or choices that both the do-nothing bloviating and Bush-enabling "moderates" on both sides of the political spectrum (e.g. the Liebermans, Hillaries, McCains and Warners) and the Bush administration itself will be able to praise and embrace in order to appear to be reasonable and open to new ideas and agreeing on what to do about the war, and then proceed to ignore as they more or less continue to do what they had been doing and intended to do all along. It will provide them with the political cover to be able to continue to do nothing to change the course of the war for the better.

This commission was never meant to be, and is not likely to ever be allowed to be, or treated as, the sort of serious, hard-hitting commission that it is being marketed as, that might actually come up with serious and realistic proposals to deal with the war that the current powers that be in congress and the administration would ever be likely to follow through with--just as the 9/11 Commission was similarly used for marketing purposes and then mostly ignored by both congress and the Bush administration. Or, for that matter, the "principled" group of Warner, McCain and Graham that pretended to oppose the original form of the MCA, and then basically signed onto what ended up being essentially the same thing. These commissions have always had one purpose and one purpose only: political cover for the powers that be to be able to look like they're willing to address serious issues seriously, and then do nothing of the sort.

They're sort of like what going into "rehab" was for Mark Foley, or Bush's mock Crawford "ranch" is for him: 100% PR, 0% substance.

However, there's one interesting new wrinkle in the political reality in DC now that complicates this plan for these "moderate" powers than be. Namely, the new Democratic majorities in both houses, that will be led not by the sorts of weak and/or unpricipled faux "moderates" that have led it for the duration of the war, but a number of liberal, progressive and tough Democrats who have quite different ideas for how to approach the war (and a number of other matters as well), and are not likely (I believe) to simply take the ISG at face value. Instead, they might well choose to question it aggessively in hearings, and bring in their own panel of experts that are not as loyal to these "moderate" powers that be, in the shockingly refreshing hope of actually coming up with some serious policy recommendations that might actually be implemented. I'm not saying that this WILL happen, but it does complicate things for those who had viewed the ISG as political cover for their intention of doing nothing about the war.

I hope that Pelosi and Reid don't take the bait and let the ISG and its administration and "moderate" supporters use it to be able to continue to control the debate over the war, and that they instead treat it like the commission that it is being presented as and should be (as opposed to the commission that it is almost certainly meant to be by those who are seeking to use it for political cover), and if it fails to deliver useful and practical advice, dispatch with it promptly and then convene its own commission that is mandated with the task of actually coming up with useful and practical advice for ending the war (thus stealing the thunder from the ISG's "moderate" supporters while hopefully actually doing something about the war). Whether they will do this remains to be seen. But this is what I think they need to do. That much seems pretty obvious to me.
Kovie | 11.26.06 - 11:41 am | #

My question is, if the Baker Group is stacked against withdrawal, what exactly are the neocons complaining about? The BG seem designed to put lipstick on their pig. Why not go along?
sunny

I'll take a guess. First, they want to control everything, both to achieve their aims and to cover their crimes. Second, they want to accept blame for nothing. Think of this as a rear-guard action.
Baldie McEagle | 11.26.06 - 11:47 am | #

Dan D | 11.26.06 - 11:37 am

Yup. There is a world of difference between unprincipled "moderates" who are basically willing to do whatever it takes to survive and advance politically--i.e. "sell out"--and principled partisans who are willing to meet in the middle to try to hash out practical compromises that might not be 100% of what they seek but which don't fundamentally compromise their beliefs and goals.

The former is Clintonesque "triangulation", which effectively destroyed the Democratic party in the 90's and led to the passage of the Iraq War Resolution and PATRIOT Act, while the latter is how good policy gets created, of the sort that led to the passing of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of the 60's, and the creation of the EPA and Clean Water Acts in the early 70's.

I suspect--or perhaps just hope--that the success of the Democrats in this election, led by its progressive wing, will make it possible for politics to return to the latter form of practical and principled "centrism", and away from the phony, unprincipled and disasterous "centrism" of recent years. It will be interesting to see how the coming fight between the progressive and triangulating wings of the party play out, as this will probably determine how the next congress will proceed.
Kovie | 11.26.06 - 11:53 am | #

Talk about rounding up the usual suspects. Do we even need to ask who they are?
They are who they always are, the undead of the American Imperium, assisted from their coffins as night is falling yet again, the lingering traces of native earth lovingly brushed away from their mouldering velvet lapels by a new generation of familiars. From the crypt, they make their way up the grand starcase, and gather again around the same old mahogany conference table furnished with the same old maps.

Deo Gratias, says the Post, now we'll see something sensible. My advice: Don't hold your breath.
William Timberman | 11.26.06 - 11:55 am | #

Um, MD, the name is not “Powerful” it is, Powerfool.

Maybe my post will make more sense now.
Powerfool | 11.26.06 - 11:58 am | #

thelastnamechosen | 11.26.06 - 11:20 am

Cheney's was the minority report of the overall Iran-Contra findings. And, hopefully, that is a role that he will soon play again. He was born to be an annoying ankle-biter, not someone with the power to actually make and implement policy. That he accidentally fell into this role these past few years was a disaster of historical dimensions, as we can all see plainly. Hopefully, though, he will soon be deprived of such power by the new Democratically-controlled congress, and relegated to effective minority status once again, where he plainly belongs.

Junkyard dogs belong in junkyards, where they cannot do much damage, and not out in the open, where they clearly can.
Kovie | 11.26.06 - 12:01 pm | #

I hold an "antiwar" view more extreme than simply advocating for withdrawal, i.e. I seriously contend we should have withdrawal and reparations.

I could believe maybe that a withdrawal advocate was on the commission. I would be shocked into mute starry-eyed amazement if an advocate for withdrawal and reparations had been selected.
s9 | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:09 pm | #

Back in 2002, when the U.S. was debating whether to invade Iraq, those who opposed the invasion were, for that reason alone, dismissed as unserious morons and demonized as anti-American subversive hippies.
And don't forget, not only demonized but put on subversives' lists to be monitored by FBI and Pentagon intelligence assets. I recall watching a videotape from a Seattle protest recovered from the local police who were trying to I.D. people who were speaking out against the war, for the sole reason they were speaking out against the war.

And who knows who has been added to the mandatory rectal exam list courtesy TSA? Nobody is allowed to see that list other than the Soviet[del][del][del][del][del][del] most trusted law enforcement authorities at the SS[del][del] DHS.
Alan | 11.26.06 - 12:13 pm | #

"Junkyard dogs belong in junkyards, where they cannot do much damage, and not out in the open, where they clearly can."

That's a great metaphor. It's almst like they took the fences down around the junkyard, moved them to little enclosures scattered about the country, and called them 'free speech zones'. So the dog is running free, and the rest of us are wondering where the hell this fence came from.
casual observer | 11.26.06 - 12:13 pm | #

s9:

Considering that the sainted Jimmy Carter said (as you probably know) that reparations for Vietnam were off the table because "the destruction was mutual," I'd say that the odds on reparations are slim to none for this demented nation of yours.
Potato Head | 11.26.06 - 12:14 pm | #

Shooter242: Given the awesome brainpower assembled here...

Ha ha ha...

(chuckle)

That's cute.
exasperanto | 11.26.06 - 12:19 pm | #

I am afraid that Lez Izmore (9:51) is spot on the money.

These issues will all soon be rendered as useless as posturings in 1992 were over supporting the idea of a united Yugoslavia or not.

The facts on the ground will soon make what the Baker Commission or who serves on it academic exercises in futility.

There seemse to have been a 'pradigm shift' (a favorite rightist phrase) over much of the media coverage and punditry since Thursday.

Gen. Trainor on NBC said at this point we have NO options left in Iraq. Getting the Syrians or Iranians involved at this point will be an exercise in futility, as what influence they currently have will matter not. Events on the ground are totally out of control.

An expert on the Lehrer report, indeed, stated that at this point Muqtada al Sadr has no control over his OWN MILITIA. His ploy of pulling out of the Government is intended to get him aligned with where his followers are. The expert doubted he would succeed.

All anybody can do now is sit back and watch. I'm afraid pulling out immediately will soon be our ONLY option.

And all the blame for what follows now can be laid at the feet of the neocons and their Republican supporters. Every time we passed what would seem a decent exit ramp along the way on this freeway to hell,they've blocked it.

Discussion of ANY options until now was denounced as tantamount to treason. Now that they WANT to discuss options, alas, none are left.
twit | 11.26.06 - 12:46 pm | #

The Baker-Hamilton Commission is a big scam. Plain and simple. It's cover for criminals. I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope that the Dems don't get sucked into this latest PR stunt.

The only way to "win" in Iraq is to leave. Right now. Completely. Then bring impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney and pledge humanitarian aid.
Dem-agog | 11.26.06 - 12:50 pm | #

Dem--

I agree--'winning' or 'losing' is no longer relevant. Getting out with our skins intact is what is important now.
twit | 11.26.06 - 12:53 pm | #

Uh, shooter, I think if you go back and read all the posts slowly, word by word so you can understand them fully, you'll realize that no one here is advocating leaving immediately.
Les Izmore

Brave Sir Flamebait (née Sharter) should leave immediately... for Iraq.
LWM | 11.26.06 - 1:26 pm | #

The fat lady has sung and is ready to sing the encore.
Maude

The fat lady has already sung and done an encore and is in a taxi on the way to the airport. Trouble is, though, she can't get out because the airport is closed until the civil war is over.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 11.26.06 - 1:27 pm | #

twit at 12:46:

Word.

All the early decisions of the occupation (turning a blind eye to looting, dismantling the army, banning the Baath party, failing to repair infrastructure, messing with the agricultural system) guaranteed a power vacuum. Strange ideas: invade yet relinquish control; fight insurgencies but keep troop levels low so resistance simmers constantly.

If Vietnam's quagmire was accidental, Iraq's was pre-ordained. Now a group of warmed-over policy hacks is attempting some wishful thinking for public consumption and calling it hard-headed realism. The neo-cons, their Bush1 saviours, the military, the punditry - they're all at their wits' end. The American invasion was not only deceitful, immoral and unnecessary; it is now irrelevant. The Iraqis will take it from here.
exasperanto | 11.26.06 - 1:33 pm | #

"shooter242":

Will leaving solve the civil war or make it worse?

You misspelled "staying". Feel free to offer your own educated judgement. You may bring pencil, books, and search engine. Hindsight is allowed. Points off for wrogn answers (which is the part you keep forgetting; you're facing an uphill battle at the start).

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 1:40 pm | #

"shooter242" hasn't twigged to the fact that there are no good options any more:

t's interesting ot me to see how many people advocate leaving ASAP without seeming to care what happens as a result, what happens to the rest of the world as a result.

Nonsense, of course. But to be intellectually honest, it has to be a comparison to what Dubya's 'staying the course' is doing.

Do such people assume no potential downside exists?

No. There are no 'good' options. Just less bad ones.

... That there is nothing worth considering past withdrawal?

Nonsense. And most rational people considering it have talked about what else to do, including the much maligned Murtha.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 1:45 pm | #

Last night I happened to be watched the NBC Nightly News with my father. We don't usually get into political discussions because, really, it's an exercise in futility and frustration. My dad is a guy who by any standard definition is a redneck... a Massachusetts redneck, but a redneck nonetheless; a guy who twice voted for Bush and still supports him despite acknowledging/admitting that Bush is "numb"; a guy who would be just as happy "nuking" the Middle East off the map; and he was all gung-ho for this war and still maintains a fervant belief that Iraq attacked the World Trade Center.

So as we're watching a report about the chaos in Iraq, my dad shakes his head and declares, "it's time to get the hell outta there. Start sending in the C130s and loading guys up. It's over."

This idea that keeping troops in Iraq is the centrist position, or that a plan to bring them home is "leftist".. that has no basis in truth whatsoever. It's nuts. And hearing someone like my dad who isn't even vaguely interested in this whole phased-withdrawal business... he wants it done--now, makes me wonder about the fear the Democrats have for standing up and saying just that.

Why must we bother with any pretense that there's a good long way to do this? We're not going to literally start sending planes over and loading up soldiers like we're evacuating, right; it goes without saying that the process itself would take into account the "best" way to accomplish a withdrawal, and of course even once it starts, it's going to take some time. But the whole idea that we should start *aiming* for a planned withdrawal as of some random time 6 months in the future... seems absurd. And there's clearly no political benefit for Democrats to play those word games, since even the most hardened Republican rednecks like my dad are done with the whole thing and don't even care about what happens... they just want us OUT.

Clearly, any plan that is structured around keeping troops fighting is the radical plan. "Centrist", my ass.
Tise | 11.26.06 - 2:12 pm | #

How dare you say that America's service men and women are participating in "an unmitigated disaster".
We must support our fighting men and women. Well, not if they're fighting with each other, which would be a breach of discipline such that you're recounting of the incident is a boon to our unprincipled enemy.
After all, you have children, too!
Mooser | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:20 pm | #

Is withdrawal -- whether incremental or total -- considered to be an "extreme view" that the Washington "centrists" have not only rejected but have excluded in advance even from consideration?

If one goes back and reads the articles by the other "hippies" (I was one too) who argued that going into Iraq would be a disaster, it's truly amazing how accurate many were in predicting almost to the letter what would happen. It's like they had a crystal ball.

Guess what? Those people do not really like each other. There is no allegiance to a nation, its principles or its history which binds them together. Their basic allegiance is to their own tribes.

If America were invaded we'd put aside all our differences and unite against the enemy. In Iraq, America invades them and do they unite against the occupying forces? No. They decide this is the perfect occasion to start burning each other alive. What are we doing there anyway? We should get out immediately.

Nobody, to my knowledge, is proposing that we cede American territory to the Iraqi insurgents, so withdrawal essentially defines the far end of the anti-war spectrum.

Well I wouldn't say nobody. If Washington's view, despite what the American voters tried to tell them, is that staying in Iraq is "centrist", I would propose that we cede a few "think tanks " in Washington D.C. to the Iraqi insurgents. Somebody has to put an end to this madness.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.26.06 - 2:21 pm | #

Doesn't anybody see the bright side of staying in? Makes it hard to do a full-scale invasion of Iran.

The moment those troops start coming home, you can bet your bottom dollar the neo-cons will have another war line up for them. And this one might not turn out so well..
faux facsimile | 11.26.06 - 2:25 pm | #

I think America has slowly come to the same conclusion that Tise's dad has. I can't imagine anyone comfortable with a price tag of two trillion dollars for a mistake, an unacceptable number of dead americans for a mistake, or tolerating increasing troop numbers so the politicians can exit with some dignity intact. This Conservative neocon event needs to ended and ended soon.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:27 pm | #

I know people like Webb, Gore, Clarke, and Kascinich have been amazingly prescient about the effects of a war with Iraq, are there any such people in this study group?
Paul XQ

Oh good. I finally get to join in the fun and yell TROLL! Good try---no cigar however.
.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.26.06 - 2:28 pm | #

This is completely off-topic, but I'm hoping Glenn will write something about Jane Harman soon. It seems to me she was insufficiently enraged about warrantless wiretapping back when the story broke. So I'm wondering why Glenn and others are not pushing harder for a better leader on the Intelligence Committee. (Clearly, someone like Rush Holt, who is qualified and on our side, would do better.)
Jake | 11.26.06 - 2:49 pm | #

Yes, I thinks it's time for a "debate" about the war in Iraq. That's what we need, a debate. An extended debate, lasting two years, at least.
rb | 11.26.06 - 3:12 pm | #

O'DONNELL: Well, the Iraq Study Group, the first draft will be ready this weekend, it's going to be debated next week, it could go the President and the Congress very soon.

MATTHEWS: Is that official or is that a leak? Are you getting a copy early?

O'DONNEL: No, but they've got their first draft. We'll see if everybody agrees to it, but the Pentagon is already developing an alternative to give the President an out if he doesn't like the recommendations.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.26.06 - 3:24 pm | #

shooter:

I can't help but remember how entusiastic you were when the Israeli's were engaged in their operations in Lebanon. You were supportive of what they were doing and didn't hesitate to blame the civillian deaths on Hezbollah.

But ironically, once the Israeli's realized that the operation was no longer in their best interest they stopped it cold.

I have yet to hear of any warhawks complaining that the Israeli's "cut and run" or "failed to finish the job" or any of the other schoolyard taunts that American realists are continuously subject to.

I wonder why that is?
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:26 pm | #

Whaddaya mean no options!

Have some imagination. Jonathan Chait today suggests reinstalling Uncle Saddam in power as a solution. Why didn't Bush think of that? Doh!
daleyrocks | 11.26.06 - 3:44 pm | #

From shooter242 at 10:22am:

Did I miss projections somewhere, of what would happen after leaving ASAP?

I'd be interested how our staying there is accomplishing ANYTHING.

Given the awesome brainpower assembled here, demonstrating the talent to predict what would happen in Iraq, after the fact - would anyone care to predict the ramifications of leaving? Before the fact?

Considering the many 'predictions' made about this little expedition your lot have mounted all proved accurate before the fact, here's a few more:

1. the civil war will worsen until

2. a new strongman in Hussein's mold emerges and

3. brings the rest of the country to heel, likely with strong Iranian support, whereupon

4. the new Arab/Persian regional power makes all sorts of trouble for the US for at least a generation to come

NONE of which would have been likely never mind possible had it not been for Bush43's invasion of Iraq.

Congratulations, git. You've created yet another set of problems for us all.

Will leaving solve the civil war or make it worse? Will Iran or Syria take over the country? Will nukes be unveiled as the next generation weapon between Muslim sects?

I repeat: exactly how is our continuing presence in Iraq accomplishing ANYTHING?

It's interesting ot me to see how many people advocate leaving ASAP without seeming to care what happens as a result, what happens to the rest of the world as a result.

Given all our "withdrawls" have been under Republican Presidents (Somalia being only an exception as it is forced by an outgoing Republican President)? I'm not surprised you'd hold such a mistaken notion.

Do such people assume no potential downside exists? That there is nothing worth considering past withdrawal?

We recognize there are no "good" options anymore. Your crowd's incompetence and corruption has left us with only "less bad" ones.

Again, congratulations. You've destroyed both our army and our international standing as well as Iraq.

Hope you can live with that.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 3:45 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 3:44pm:

Whaddaya mean no options!

Oh, there are options aplenty. All of them ineffectual or simply varying levels of "bad".

Have some imagination. Jonathan Chait today suggests reinstalling Uncle Saddam in power as a solution. Why didn't Bush think of that? Doh!

Its a well-established fact George W Bush doesn't "think" any more than you do.

Or do you actually have some serious suggestions to offer yourself? I shalln't hold my breath.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 3:50 pm | #

There's one thing that keeps bugging me about the way the warmongers (a monger is a seller, by the way, so in this case, the term is exceptionally appropriate) talk about those who oppose them.

The war in Iraq has cost hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been used to fight the war on terror.

The war in Iraq has tied our hands; we have nearly 150,000 troops there, and even if we wanted to, we can't just withdraw; it'll take months, at least, to move those troops out safely.

Our stores of supplies have been drained in order to keep the real cost of the war off the books; if a real problem cropped up, we would be limited in our response.

The war has been responsible for over 600,000 violent deaths.

The war has made our best intelligence look feeble. Remember? "Good solid intelligence" is what sent us to war; I bet that the rest of the world is going to jump to support us when we say we have good, solid intelligence in the future!

The war has caused untold harm to the US, and untold harm to Iraq.

What rational person wouldn't be furious about this?

I mean, think about it. They're basically saying "we know we're right, and we know that the other side knows we're right too!"

Nothing else would cause the tragic misarrogance that leads them to scorn those who are angry about the war.
LongHairedWeirdo | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:55 pm | #

lil' shooter:

Given the awesome brainpower assembled here, demonstrating the talent to predict what would happen in Iraq, after the fact - would anyone care to predict the ramifications of leaving? Before the fact?

Many of us knew exactly what would happen if we made the idiotic decison to attack Iraq, before the war started. I should post all the emails I sent to my own congresspeople before the war about what would happen if we went ahead with our plans to go into Iraq. And its turned out as bad as I predicted it would, for exactly the reasons I said it would.

Predicting what will happen when we leave is not as easy. But whatever happens, history will lay the blame on Bush's doorstep. It's Bush who forced America into a situation where there are NO good answers. So when the time comes to roll the dice and make a move, which will ultimately be to leave, Bush will be responsible for any carnage.

And if the decisions made by those who have to clean up Bush's mess turn out to have fairly benign consequences, they, not GW Bush, will get the credit. Bush will go down in history as the worst president in American history.

And that's an easy prediction.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:56 pm | #

…but the Pentagon is already developing an alternative to give the President an out if he doesn't like the recommendations.

The Cheney Administration is going to do what they want to do, regardless of whatever recommendations they receive. At this point, for Cheney/Bush and their neo-con compatriots what’s important is not what happens in Iraq, but who gets blamed for it.

It’s of crucial importance that they can shift the blame to the smelly hippies and the “Democrat” Party for losing Iraq. For the rest of our lives we’ll hear how Bush was winning Iraq, but was undercut by the ‘librul media’ whose lies turned the public
against the war.

What we’re really waiting for is a way for BushCo to shift the blame to someone else, and we’re going to stay there until they’re able to say, “look, it’s their fault, not mine, we were winning.”

In the meantime, the no-bid contracts flow, tax-payer money is siphoned off by KBR and Halliburton for whom things are going “remarkably well.”

The stock options for the CEO of Halliburton have risen by $100 million dollars – and that’s just one of Cheney’s cronies. There’s still a lot of loot to be made over there, and no reason to close the open door to the Federal Treasury just yet.

Follow the money. We aren’t leaving anytime soon. The public be damned. They had their accountability moment and they reelected Cheney. It’s a done deal now.
zack | 11.26.06 - 3:57 pm | #

with the exception of S.Day O'Conner, the only other's on the War Study Group, may just be fabby-parsnips loyal to the greed-barf-rich. pick someone to be on the War No More Study Panel who want no war no more. Please, Sandra Day O'Conner, tell the limp-flabby-parnips to go tee-hell..,and don't Buy wimpy limp parsnips...they make the whole-wide-world barf. Please, S. Day O'Conner. Teach 'um to be very discriminating shoppers.
brotherbruz | 11.26.06 - 3:59 pm | #

The "centrist" and "responsible liberal" and "moderate" position on Reagan's terror wars in Central America was to keep killing civilians in order to control their political systems in favor of US dominance.

The *bad* right wingers wanted the Reagan administration to keep killing Central American civilians in an exceptionally bloody manner, and without Congressional oversight, particularly not of their back alley funding and subversion using the Pentagon.

The *good* 'responsible liberal', 'moderate' 'centrists' wanted the Reagan administration to keep killing Central American civilians but in a more controllably bloody manner, and with Congressional oversight, except for the Reagan administration's back alley funding and subversion using the Pentagon, which the 'centrists' and 'moderates' left untouched.
El Cid | 11.26.06 - 4:04 pm | #

I will hazard a guess about what will happen when we leave. Things will get worse for a while, then get better. Once we're gone, the excuse to avoid facing the realities of the horror that is now "life in Iraq" will be gone. Iraqis will be forced to work out solutions. They may not be solutions we like, and if things turn out worse for Iraq and for America than things were under Sadaam, then Bush will earn his place as worst POTUS in history.

Wars are fought by young males. As long as the older, wiser heads can't rein in the young guys, war will go on. Usually after senseless carnage reaches a critical point, the mothers and fathers and the whole rest of society force the young men to put down the guns. Fortunately most Iraqis have strong family connections that allow this dynamic to work.

But as long as the US is still walking around with guns and in tanks, its too easy for the young males to say NO to their parents and families. And even mama has to admit, looking out the window at the Americans who terrorized her and the other women all those nights at the beginning, that the young males might have something there.

Once we're gone, the carnage will get so bad that the forces of sanity will finally start to come to life, out of self-preservation. That's what usually happens.

Iraq is a unique situation. So many forces vying for power make it hard to say what will happen. I hope I'm right, but things could also turn out worse than I imagine. Whatever happens is Bush's responsibility, and he will go down in history with it around his pathetic neck.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 4:10 pm | #

One thing is certain--America no longer has the power to fix the mess itself. The job has been so badly botched that we don't have the numbers in our military available to make things right. That, and the sheer cost in monetary terms make it far too expensive to fix. We broke it and we can't afford to fix it.

There has to be a punishment for engineering such a colossal catastrophe, doesn't there?
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 4:14 pm | #

I also don't believe Americans will allow the administartion to whitewash things if it turns out that that is what the Baker commission is all about. I think Kovie is probaly right about the reasons for appoinitng the thing in the first place. Pretend to be doing something about the problem. Thats govt. But Americans want us out. The govt will have to do something to make that happen or face the consequences in 2008, especially if things are even worse then than they are now.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 4:19 pm | #

The very fact that the White House (and all the supporters thereof) dont want to just leave make me think thats the best last option we have left. There obviously a civil war going on, the 'government' is only that by name and only within the green zone. The Iraqi people want us to leave too. There is no good reason to stay.
druidbros | 11.26.06 - 4:22 pm | #

Good post, Glenn. I'm not sure either what would comprise "extreme left" views on the Iraq war debate, but do know one thing: the MSM assigning a left/Democratic, right/Republican side to all issues by rote, especially when one or both doesn't exist, is getting really old. This left/right stuff has caused untold damage to our public discourse on policy and benefits only those who best manipulate it for political gain.

Bush has nowhere to go but the Baker-Hamilton Commission. He has, as he has done with everything else political and diplomatic, painted himself into a corner on Iraq with his "stay the course" rhetoric. Furthermore, his administration is filled with either ideologues opposing such a re-evaluation or incompetents incapable of such an assignment. As Bush has always done in the past, he will take any opportunity to lay his problems on someone else. I would be willing to bet Baker made Bush well aware that this was a political offer he couldn't refuse.

While the breadth of the Commission's work is yet to made clear, it will certainly include providing political cover for Bush.
rollotomasi | 11.26.06 - 4:29 pm | #

I'm hoping Glenn will write something about Jane Harman soon. It seems to me she was insufficiently enraged about warrantless wiretapping back when the story broke. So I'm wondering why Glenn and others are not pushing harder for a better leader on the Intelligence Committee. (Clearly, someone like Rush Holt, who is qualified and on our side, would do better.)

Did you see this post?
Mark Field | 11.26.06 - 4:34 pm | #

www.LouDobbs4President.com


Petition
Lou Dobbs 2008 | 11.26.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V...h? v=VI6Itrm72Ms
cakewalk my ass | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 4:56 pm | #

The govt will have to do something to make that happen or face the consequences in 2008, especially if things are even worse then than they are now.

For the first time in a long time, we don’t have anyone from the current administration running in 2008, which Billmon pointed out, frees them to do what they want to a greater extent.

Even the Republicans will be running against the Bush administration. If only they listened to Saint John McCain and Holy Joe Lieberman and sent more troops, all would be well. Yada, yada, yada. Etc……

The administration will seize on Baker’s conclusion that leaving immediately would cause more chaos, and they’ll ignore everything else the commission says. They’ll have their own experts, just like they did when they got us into this debacle.

As the Boston Globe article today points out, Cheney will defy anything Congress wants or asks of him, he feels he can conduct his own foreign policy without any interference from Congress. He’s made that very clear.

In short, things are going to get a whole lot uglier before the administration makes the slightest concession to reality.

They’ve created a fantasy bubble for themselves, and they’re not going to leave until they’re pulled out of it kicking and screaming – and that’s what may just happen.
zack | 11.26.06 - 4:58 pm | #

Sudden withdrawal is defeat, and all that goes with it: A major victory for terrorists, a cynical blow to democracy and the potential for a democratic middle east, and a dangerous victory for Iran, with Lebanon and Syria all but lost to the islamofacists. If you want to call it the extreme view, or the liberal view, or the anti-neocon view, it is what it is. And the outcome would be very dangerous indeed for the United States.
Who'd 'a known | 11.26.06 - 5:04 pm | #

Sudden withdrawal is defeat, and all that goes with it:

Asserting it doesn't make it true.

I'm more curious as to your working defintion for victory.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 5:07 pm | #

Did you see this post?
Mark Field | 11.26.06 - 4:34 pm

That, plus the MANY posts Glenn had back when the wiretap program was first revealed, about how Dems were not standing up to Bush sufficiently wrt this and similar programs (e.g. rendition, torture, idefinite detaining, etc.), of which Harman has been a particularly egregious example. He's hardly on the fence or silent about Harman and her ilk. They have failed to do their jobs, and must be replaced with abler and more principled Dems.

I imagine that Pelosi has already decided on who she'd like to head the intel committee, and is working hard to win support for him or her before announcing it. No doubt she's facing much opposition from the "go along to get along" Blue Dogs and others of that ilk, who seem to think that helping business out is congress's first, last and only role, and who invariably run from a fight (unless it's with their own side). This is clearly why she wanted Murtha, not Hoyer, as leader.

I'm hearing Reyes, Holt and Dicks as possible picks beyond the MSM's phony Harman-Hastings choice. I kind of like Dicks since I live in WA, not far from his district, but I've heard good things about Holt, and even Reyes sounds better than these two. But I'm deferring to Pelosi & Co. to make what they think is the best choice. I'm getting a good feeling (for a pleasant change) about this crop of Dem leaders--in both chambers (but not, of course, about the entire caucus).

Infinitely better than what preceeded it, of course, no matter how you slice it.
Kovie | 11.26.06 - 5:09 pm | #

Here's an "extreme" leftist position:

1. US should appeal to the UN to convene its Security Council to determine the best course of action in Iraq. US should pledge not to veto any SC decision on Iraq.

2. US should turn command of its Iraq forces over to UN direction, until such time as all US troops have been replaced by UN personnel.

3. US Congress should formally ratify International Court treaties, and assist it in apprehending all ranking members of the Bush administration to stand trial under its jurisdiction for their crimes against humanity.
anon | 11.26.06 - 5:20 pm | #

HooDah, it's considered gauche to lick your wounds in public. The victory you seek is beyond your grasp. Indeed, it's beyond anyone's grasp. it's time to consider your future as an ordinary human being, sans gloire, sans immortalité.

You'll be the better for it.
William Timberman | 11.26.06 - 5:21 pm | #

It's quite simple really: The American public wants us out of Iraq; the Iraqi public wants us out of Iraq; the only people who want us in Iraq are KBR, Haliburton, Al-Qaeda, and the Cheney administration; therefore we will stay in Iraq.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 11.26.06 - 5:21 pm | #

What I think is in the works is that this Baker-Hamilton Commission, (like the nomination of Gates) will be the “new Powell” that will give this “stay the course for another Friedman or two” policy a shred of credibility with the not-so-liberal press.

And, in the meantime, the Cheneyites instead of playing by the rules and doing what is expected, will just kick the whole chessboard into the air, with pieces flying every-which-way by attacking Iran.

And, all of sudden, Iraq isn’t our biggest problem after all.

It’s a hell of way to change the subject, but I don’t put it past them.
zack | 11.26.06 - 5:28 pm | #

One more little point:

4. US should pledge to pay all costs for UN administration of Iraq reconstruction, as well as reparations to all injured parties in Iraq.
anon | 11.26.06 - 5:28 pm | #

What so many seem to overlook is the simple fact that no people in no nation like to be invaded and occupied - it's as simple as that.

Iraq is just following a universal historical precedent. Resentment against the invader builds up a pool of discontent in the invaded country, and national and tribal divisions deepen between those who for their own reasons gain from the invasion and those who are implacably opposed.

It's so fucking simple!

And yet the US plan is to stay long term in Iraq at all costs - permanent bases and half-billion dollar embassies are nearing completion.

In the end the world looks at all Americans and sees them ALL - left and right Democrat and Republican - as collectively responsible.

What a disaster!
stevehh | 11.26.06 - 5:33 pm | #

Sudden withdrawal is defeat, and all that goes with it: A major victory for terrorists, a cynical blow to democracy and the potential for a democratic middle east, and a dangerous victory for Iran, with Lebanon and Syria all but lost to the islamofacists.

Perhaps you mean well, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

First, we have already lost. In fact, we lost the moment we decided to go to war for dishonest, naive, cynical and quite possibly crazy reasons, without sufficient troops, armor or equipment, without a real coalition and UN or regional approval, without a plan for the occupation and reconstruction, and without a political leadership that was sincere about any of its stated reasons for going to war or serious about truly winning--whatever that means at this point.

You're not actually suggesting that Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld ever had a clue, or were serious about winning, are you? If so, prove it. In any case, the war has long since been lost, and all that's left now is to salvage what little we can of this miserable clusterfuck of a catastrophe. It's either cut our losses and start planning for withdrawal, or further extend them for no good reason.

Second, the terrorists--along with all the non-Islamist insurgents and militias, who at all times have been by far the biggest source of violence in Iraq--have already "won", by our having provided them with what has been an incredible recruitment and training opportunity for them. We took an already bad situation and made it VASTLY worse. To the terrorists, this is a victory by any measure.

Third, democracy? Are you insane? This was never about democracy. Even if they were sincere about this--which they clearly weren't--you cannot impose democracy militarily, on a society that is clearly not yet ready for it. NOT because Iraqis and Iraqi society lack the inherent capacity for democracy, which is a silly straw man argument, because clearly they possess this capacity, as do all peoples. But, rather, because after years of repression, the practical experience of self-rule and self-sufficiency, which are necessary preconditions for a democracy to succeed, are simply not there.

Plus, the various ethnic and religious rivalries that have existed in Iraq for centuries, instead of having been smoothed over by our intervention, have been made vastly worse, causing an effective civil war to break out, which precludes meaningful democracy. Maybe, someday, when this violence has died down, and Iraqis have started to rebuild--which will require them to learn to work together and make do with what they have--a viable democracy might be possible, as appeared to be happening in Lebanon until Syria, Iran and Israel decided to fight a proxy war there, and the US essentially abandoned it.

Fourth, while I agree that this has been a dangerous victory for Iran--not will be, if we withdraw, but HAS BEEN, because we started and then inepty waged this war--I do not believe that Iraq will be the Iranian puppet state that many fear, because Iraq's Arab Shiites have never gotten along with or trusted Iran's Persian Shiites (and anyone who doesn't know the difference is not qualified to opine on such matters). They will clearly be allied--and clearly we can't have a problem with that, if we're so gung ho about democracy--but Iran will not control Iraq.

And finally, "Islamofascism" is not going to take over either Lebanon or Syria, simply because it has never had, and does not have today, a strong presence in either. Hezbollah is as close as it gets, but it is still a minority within a minority in Lebanon, and neither Israel, nor Syria, nor the US--not to mention Lebanon's other powerful minorities--are likely to allow it to completely take over. As for Syria, well, the Assads pretty much took care of its nascent "Islamofascist" movement some 20 years ago in a little town called Hama. Look it up.

Seriously, while no one is recommending an IMMEDIATE withdrawal, any serious plan for concluding this horrible war is going to have to come down to one variation of withdrawal or another--and soon--preferably with regional, NATO and UN participation. All serious people who have followed this war realize that, whether they're saying so or not. Even the ISG looks to be a way to politically cover for Bush's apparent decision to start getting out next year (or else why did he fire Rumsfeld and nominate Gates?).

Get with the program, because everyone else has.
Kovie | 11.26.06 - 5:40 pm | #

I'd really like to know what the excluded anti-war "extreme view" is that is the equivalent of the neonconservative desire for endless warfare in Iraq and beyond. [...] Nobody, to my knowledge, is proposing that we cede American territory to the Iraqi insurgents, so withdrawal essentially defines the far end of the anti-war spectrum.

A clarification: I've proposed, on numerous occasions, that we give them Texas.

cynic | 11.26.06 - 5:43 pm | #

Do such people assume no potential downside exists? That there is nothing worth considering past withdrawal?
shooter242 | 11.26.06 - 10:12 am |

Why, it could be horrible! Innocent civilians could be driven from their homes by ethnic cleansing. People could be swept up by roving street gangs(aka, "militias"), tortured and murdered over religious beliefs. Average citizens could risk life and limb just attempting to go to market.

Oh, wait....

Smarter monkeys, please.

Selah.
CAGary | 11.26.06 - 5:45 pm | #

To those who sit behind desks and promote endless war:

Get a gun and get over there, let's see how deep your committment is; but bring our troops home first.
Publicus | 11.26.06 - 6:02 pm | #

Mark Danner on The Mess.

Happy Holidays.

cynic | 11.26.06 - 6:25 pm | #

How about these quotes for "extreme left" views:

"American military forces are ill suited for this mission. Our forces are designed, equipped, trained and maintained to fight and to win in combat. If you give our forces a military objective they will meet that objective. But they are not trained to pacify unruly mobs. Americans have no desire to see their men and women degraded, killed, and defiled by lawless reprobates who drag the bodies of Americans through the streets to be kicked and spat upon."

And:

“The American people are not supportive of the continued involvement of our fighting men and women in an unfocused mission that lacks an objective and exposes them to further harm. We should bring the troops home as soon as we have secured the release of any prisoners of war and received a full accounting of our missing in action.

The President is making a terrible mistake if he thinks that six more months of the continued presence of our forces in Somalia will result in anything but the deaths of more American military men and women. There is significant sentiment in the Senate to bring the troops home. I am certain that, once Senators and Congressmen hear from their constituents -- the American people -- they will demand the expedited end to the United States role in Somalia.”

These quotes are from everyone's favorite extreme leftists, Trent Lott and John McCain, respectively, regarding President Clinton's decision NOT to summarily withdraw from Somalia in 1993.
rollotomasi | 11.26.06 - 6:37 pm | #

I guess I missed Glenn's early blog entry on the Pelosi-Harman dust-up. Looks like Glenn is just as disenchanted with Harman as I'd expect him to be. I only wish he'd do a little more to focus that laser-like scrutiny on her. The one-to-two paragraph knock on Harman in the middle of a piece primarily devoted to Pelosi's treatment by the media is not exactly satiating my appetite.
Jake | 11.26.06 - 6:40 pm | #

cynic,

I read the Danner piece. It is understated and measured, to say the least.

It does document the uniform incompetence among Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rice.

According to the Danner version, Rumsfeld is both incompetent and malevolent, while Rice is merely incompetent and stupid.

They both got on great with Bush, who apparently takes to such people with enthusiasm.

Powell is the straight man in a Laurel and Hardy vaudeville act, and of course Bush fired him.
MD | 11.26.06 - 6:49 pm | #

I'm more curious as to your working defintion for victory.
Paul Dirks

Paul, in my view that is a sovereign Iraq able to truly act like one, including quelling sectarian violence, and resisting the influence of Iran, to a manageable degree.

The country is not ready for that. It will take time to sort out the complicated political aspects, not to mention train their army to the daunting tasks in front of it.
Who'd 'a known | 11.26.06 - 6:51 pm | #

The country is not ready for that. It will take time to sort out the complicated political aspects, not to mention train their army to the daunting tasks in front of it.
Who'd 'a known | 11.26.06 - 6:51 pm | #

...and provide for the safety of their families if they remain in the Iraqi army, and train a national police force that isn't thoroughly corrupt. What news sources documenting progress in any of these matters can you link to? What papers produced by our military, or Britain's, discuss these issues? All I read about is incremental increases in sectarian violence, and ethnic cleansing in the neighborhoods of Baghdad. I generally rely on the Monitor, the Financial Times, the Economist for international news. Where do you find support for the idea that "training the Iraqi army" is a feat still within our grasp?
Fluffy | 11.26.06 - 7:03 pm | #

Am I the only one who finds it odd that none the "expertise groups" includes a group dedicated to expertise in Iraq or regional affairs? I guess they all are supposed to know about it, but I still find it weird.
MDtoMN | 11.26.06 - 7:12 pm | #

Where do you find support for the idea that "training the Iraqi army" is a feat still within our grasp?
Fluffy

There have been a number of articles recently regarding the amount of Iraq under Iraqi control, the number of ready divisions, etc. Progress is definitely being made. Never fast enough, of course, but it is happening.
Who'd 'a known | 11.26.06 - 7:21 pm | #

Where do you find support for the idea that "training the Iraqi army" is a feat still within our grasp?

Who'd's response actually brings to light one of the more serious problems affecting us as Americans.

Contrary to some of the accusations levelled by the more serious, libelous warmongers, Americans feel at home travelling anywhere in this country and have no trouble understanding that our loyalty and the "providing for the common defense" that we all share operates on a national level. I can fly to Birmingham, Alabama one day and Chicago, Illinois the next and while I might feel uncomfortable getting into serious political debates in barrooms in those places, I can reasonably expect to come away from such a conversation alive.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, however such confidence is totally misplaced. Tribal/Religious identity trumps nationalism and we as Americans just don't get it.

That's why Who'd and others who think similarly think that "a sovereign Iraq able to truly act like one, including quelling sectarian violence, and resisting the influence of Iran is actually achievable. Nothing in their immediate experience suggests otherwise.

That's why I pray vigorously that at some point in our near future, we can put adults in charge of our foreign policy and give the frat-boys a well deserved time-out.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 7:23 pm | #

From Who'd a known at 5:04pm:

Sudden withdrawal is defeat, and all that goes with it: A major victory for terrorists, a cynical blow to democracy and the potential for a democratic middle east, and a dangerous victory for Iran, with Lebanon and Syria all but lost to the islamofacists. If you want to call it the extreme view, or the liberal view, or the anti-neocon view, it is what it is. And the outcome would be very dangerous indeed for the United States.

Bravo! Bravo! A brava performance and flawless recitation of nonsense!

Okay, let's be serious:

WHAT PRECISELY DO YOU RECOMMEND THE UNITED STATES DO TO PREVENT SUCH AN OUTCOME?

Or are you as bereft of actual recommendations as you are of morals?
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 7:23 pm | #

Kovie - Michael Mooron is advocating an immediate withdrawal. Check out his latest almost fact free epistle.
daleyrocks | 11.26.06 - 7:27 pm | #

Here is a link on the New Iraqi Army:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New.../ New_Iraqi_Army
Who'd 'a known | 11.26.06 - 7:27 pm | #

Or are you as bereft of actual recommendations as you are of morals?
Iokanaan in the Well

8 on the Contempt-O-Meter, sorry, no answer for you.
Who'd 'a known | 11.26.06 - 7:28 pm | #

From Who'd a known at 6:51pm:

Paul, in my view that is a sovereign Iraq able to truly act like one, including quelling sectarian violence, and resisting the influence of Iran, to a manageable degree.

Excellent. A clear-eyed goal for a change.

The country is not ready for that. It will take time to sort out the complicated political aspects, not to mention train their army to the daunting tasks in front of it.

And WHAT precisely has your crowd been doing there for the past three and a half years?(BESIDES wasting time, lives and billions of dollars, that is)

Who'd a known tries again at 7:21pm:

There have been a number of articles recently regarding the amount of Iraq under Iraqi control, the number of ready divisions, etc.

PROVIDE LINKS if you please. Such claims have no credibility otherwise.

Progress is definitely being made. Never fast enough, of course, but it is happening.

Your evidence of this (besides wishful thinking)?
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 7:28 pm | #

Nothing in their immediate experience suggests otherwise.

Paul Saddam did a pretty good job of it, and his army had been decimated by our own in the early '90s. With training and some American materiel, I don't see why it couldn't be done again.
Who'd 'a known | 11.26.06 - 7:30 pm | #

From Who'd a known at 7:28pm:

8 on the Contempt-O-Meter, sorry, no answer for you.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion you have none to offer.

Now, be a good a tool and step aside and let the adults clean up your mess.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 7:31 pm | #

HooDah: I don't see why it couldn't be done again.

Look again. Does your contempt-o-meter go up to 11?
William Timberman | 11.26.06 - 7:33 pm | #

Saddam did a pretty good job of it

Saddam bought the loyalty of his army by torturing the family members of those who weren't fully on board.

I know you didn't mean to suggest that we emulate that MO.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 7:36 pm | #

From Who'd a known at 7:27pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New.../ New_Iraqi_Army

I'd suggest you look at the article a bit more carefully, specifically at the "Challenges" section at the bottom.

And, incidentially, until we actually see the new army in large-scale action, all this is about as material as many fictions Hitler operated under up to May 1945 about state and capacity of the Wehrmacht.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 7:37 pm | #

Iokanaan in the Well - Is that you Yankme? Are you an Oscar Wilde fan and just switching screen names?
daleyrocks | 11.26.06 - 7:39 pm | #

Paul, in my view that is a sovereign Iraq able to truly act like one, including quelling sectarian violence, and resisting the influence of Iran, to a manageable degree.

The country is not ready for that. It will take time to sort out the complicated political aspects, not to mention train their army to the daunting tasks in front of it.
Who'd 'a know

You've restated what everyone knows victory might have looked like. Too bad Bush's bungling has made this outcome no longer possible. Great things might have been accomplished had they committed enough troops and planned ahead for the aftermath.


We don't have the manpower or the money left to fix the damage done by years of incompetence and failure. It's beyond our control. We did have the means at the beginning, but even a country as rich and powerful as America doesn't have infinite resources. Mismanagemnt has its costs--in this case they are positively massive. Mismanagement that costs us this dearly should bring some kind of consquences for those who failed us.

Yet you still love Bush and the Republican agenda that created this catastrophe. As with many other Bush/RW cultists you're inability to admit the truth is due to the damage your own ego will take in doing so.
But America can longer afford to avoid the truth just to support your overblown egos. Staying the course might allow you guys to pretend for a while longer that you haven't destroyed America's military and driven us into bankruptcy, but it will also further compound the damage, and we just don't have the money left to allow you guys to avoid having to admit you failed horribly.

What punishment we decide to render the people that did this to us has yet to be determined.
armagednoutahere | 11.26.06 - 7:41 pm | #

Thank you for confirming my suspicion you have none to offer.

Now, be a good a tool and step aside and let the adults clean up your mess.
Iokanaan in the Well

It's a secret method that I assume you know nothing about Iokanaan, it's called "hard work." Defeating terrorists and terrorism will require hard work and sacrifice. Oh, and time. I know three years is too long for you, but it's infinitely better than sharia, which I doubt your liberal sensitivities would appreciate.

Still infinitely better than life under the facist George Bush, to be sure, but I would love to see you in a chador.

Allah akbar.
Who'd 'a known | 11.26.06 - 7:44 pm | #

"The Iraq Study Group is a bipartisan group of prominent Americans supported by four premier institutions."

This is tough to believe. USIP provides many members, and it is composed of people appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. I do not recall a single truly bipartisan action related to Iraq coming from this group. USIP also has Cheney etc on its panel. The others seem to come from Haliburton dependents or neocon think-tanks.
david1947 | 11.26.06 - 7:45 pm | #

From Who'd a known at 7:44pm:

It's a secret method that I assume you know nothing about Iokanaan, it's called "hard work."

A phrase your boy in the White House, along with pretty much his entire circle (presumably yourself included), have never actually experienced or partaken in. Rather ironic that.

Defeating terrorists and terrorism will require hard work and sacrifice. Oh, and time.

An actual plan would help. You lot haven't shown you ever had one in the first place, never mind called for any of the above. Git.

I know three years is too long for you, but it's infinitely better than sharia, which I doubt your liberal sensitivities would appreciate.

Meaning what, exactly? Surely you aren't suggesting the familiar nonsense of 'islamofascists who want to impose sharia on us all', are you?

Still infinitely better than life under the facist George Bush, to be sure, but I would love to see you in a chador.

That brownshirt and black uniform with silver piping is quite fetching on you too.

Allah akbar.

And peace be with you.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 7:51 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 7:39pm:

Iokanaan in the Well - Is that you Yankme? Are you an Oscar Wilde fan and just switching screen names?

Very good, son. You actually can read.

Now, why don't you actually try contributing something of substance, will you? That, or emulate your handle's two components (a dead man and an inanimate object) and remain silent.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 7:57 pm | #

Does anybody expect some new miraculous ideas from the Baker Commission? Why would that happen? Aren't all the people on it and off of it giving this some thought? So the reality of it is that it is a political play. The only real question is what is the play? And as a correllary, whose getting screwed?
Chuck Butcher | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 8:00 pm | #

From Chuck Butcher at 8:00pm:

Does anybody expect some new miraculous ideas from the Baker Commission?

Bluntly, no.

Why would that happen? Aren't all the people on it and off of it giving this some thought? So the reality of it is that it is a political play.

Likely 'serious thought' was involved, but within some rather obvious constraints (namely, keeping US troops in the country). So yes, its a political play that can't really go anywhere.

The only real question is what is the play? And as a correllary, whose getting screwed?

The $60 question.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 8:06 pm | #

I wouldn't expect miracles from James Baker or anyone else when it comes to solutions for the quagmire of Iraq. Neither James Baker or the Pentagon have much interest in leaving the war earlier, they are both more concerned with cutting the number of troop casualties reducing the public's angst over continuing the war. Think Germany, Japan or Korea, we'll be there for a very long time, unless the international community steps in to help delve for a better solution.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 8:15 pm | #

We just(ly) want the world left in peace.
Vic Anderson | 11.26.06 - 8:26 pm | #

Baker is a centrist if one considers the political spectrum from a politically appropriate viewpoint.

For example, within the Carlyle Group (and what is the Baker Commission beyond an effort led by the Carlyle Group to extricate Bush 43 from his mess-in-Mesopotamia?), Baker is positively centrist in his views.

He's certainly to the left of Carlyle investor Bakr Bin Laden (yes, of that particular Saudi family), and he's plenty far left of Carlyle honcho Frank Carlucci.

So you see, all you have to do is recognize the context of what the Iraq Study Group is actually for, and the centrist position of James Baker III and his crew follows naturally.

Unfortunately, for those of us who don't have multibillion-dollar equity firms and family fixers like Baker cleaning up our messes, the whole concept is academic, because strategic debacles like the Iraq war don't come with an attached frame of reference for performing political punditry.

Like most other awful messes, this one just stinks to the right or to the left of high heaven.
Cieran | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 8:29 pm | #

From Vic Anderson at 8:26pm:

We just(ly) want the world left in peace.

And, sadly, usually leave it in pieces.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 8:48 pm | #

Defining victory in Iraq is simple: Oil exports from Iraq reaching the world market in sufficient quantity to keep the world economy relatively stable, despite any potential disruption from wahibbist terrorists.
Anonymous | 11.26.06 - 8:56 pm | #

Sudden withdrawal is defeat, and all that goes with it.

You know how Glenn does research about these always wrong pundits and marvels at why anyone would look to them now for valid insights? I've started to do some research of my own about some of the ones that Glenn misses.

Seems like the War Party believes idle hands are work for the devil and makes sure its paid whores stay very busy spreading propaganda. Notice how even some of the lefty commenters on this blog (not the one above) have so easily been sold the same garbage as the right and have swallowed the lie that immediate withdrawl doesn't make any sense.

Anyone ever heard of Michael Young?

Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star in Beirut. This is a guy who is as bad as anyone Glenn writes about. His specialty is The Big Lie. This is a classic of his which appeared on Reasononline in 2004 called
Ron Ran.....
How Lebanon tarnishes Reagan's legacy.

I wish I could post the whole article here but may I ask people to go and read it?

Why was Reagan's legacy tarnished? Because the Marines were killed? No. According to Michael Young:

[Reagan's] charisma hid the fact that he was a dope and a lawbreaker and presided over one of the most corrupt administrations ever. But mostly I can't help but think of Lebanon and how Reagan left it to face the wolves. Though the Lebanese had much responsibility in that outcome, they are also better able to gauge today the heavy price the Iraqis will pay if one ignorant U.S. president misinterprets the legacy of another.

Which of course is leading up to:

By failing to stick it out in Iraq, the U.S. could well make the same mistakes there that it did in Lebanon. True, Lebanon had no strategic significance for the Reagan administration, but when the U.S. simply cut and run, this did far more damage to its interests than many care to remember.

So then (in 2004) the brilliant seer advises the course of action this Administration has in fact followed for the last two years:

For Bush to allow this in Iraq would not only be amoral, to quote Ignatius in the Lebanese context, it would be downright immoral. An Iraqi civil war could indeed break out (whereas today one seems unlikely), Westerners would be vulnerable to kidnapping, militant anti-American groups could thrive in the vacuum, and in the absence of hegemony by one state, Iraq would be buffeted by the contending whims of several of its neighbors, which could provoke regional crises.

So. Civil war was unlikely and we should stay to prevent one he wrote in 2004.

He's back now to give more good advice since his predictions were so accurate two years ago.
So how does 'engaging with Syria' look now?

Syria has encouraged its powerful Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, to bring down the Government. The recent ministerial resignations were led by the party which has been planning demonstrations to force the Government out.

Developments in Lebanon make the idea of engaging Syria at best premature...... If political “realism” is about interests, then realists must prove that a country that has ignored successive UN resolutions demanding Syrian non-interference in Lebanon could somehow be a force for stability in Iraq, to which it has funnelled hundreds of foreign fighters. Engaging Mr Assad over Iraq will mean the gradual return of Syrian hegemony over Lebanon, since neither the US nor the UK will be in a position to deny Syria in Lebanon while asking favours in Iraq....

If one has no qualms about abandoning a rare democratic success in the Middle East, as Lebanon has been, then by all means talk to the gentlemen in Damascus.

But the times they are a-changing and Michael Young's brilliance is now subject to an interactive review. Fortunately many of his commenters aren't falling for his paid bullshit these days and appear to have informed minds of their own, minds a little more astute than his. In my next post I will include some of the comments in response to his latest War Party effort. Sometimes it's in the comment sections that you get to find the truth (although the paid shills are always out in force there too) which is one terrific thing about the Internet!
Eyes Wide Open | 11.26.06 - 9:04 pm | #

From Annoymous at 8:56pm:

Defining victory in Iraq is simple: Oil exports from Iraq reaching the world market in sufficient quantity to keep the world economy relatively stable, despite any potential disruption from wahibbist terrorists.

Simple and straight to the point (or at least as far as the Strait of Hormuz).

There is of course the pesky problem of who's running Iraq and whether they're willing to play by OPEC or the west's rules.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 9:07 pm | #

It's a secret method that I assume you know nothing about Iokanaan, it's called "hard work."

Hard Work! Something Bush has never known and never had to do!
LWM | 11.26.06 - 9:13 pm | #

14 permanent military bases. Why we are in, and will stay in, Iraq. One of the mullahs happened to notice that, gee, 600,000 dead Iraqis and only 3000 dead occupation troops. Not much of a resistance.

Instigate civil war, build permanent military bases, secure the oil, prepare for Iran. There's money to be made in chaos, lots of it.
UnMask911 | 11.26.06 - 9:24 pm | #

Failed to bring democracy to Iraq.
Failed to establish the democratic example so sought after.
Failed to halt the spread of terrorism - in fact accomplished the opposite.
Failed to put in place a sympathetic regime that would foil Iran and Syria.
Failed to demonstrate America's superior methods to other Western powers.
In six years the Bush administration has failed all courses in the syllabus that they themselves put together.
And now they hope that some remedial lame-duck studying under the guidance of some has-been tutors will suffice to earn a passing grade?
Time to pack up the books, go home and let the next generation of leaders have a go at it.
The experiment has failed. The hypotheses were incorrect. Time for a new theory.
sparafucilli | 11.26.06 - 9:29 pm | #

The Bush Administration made a deliberate trade-off: keeping the fighting in Iraq at a relatively low intensity instead of trying to bring it to a rapid conclusion at the price of dramatically increased violence. Now one may argue whether or not this was the correct decision, but one should not dishonestly distort the facts.
anonymoose | 11.26.06 - 9:36 pm | #

From anonymoose at 9:36pm:

The Bush Administration made a deliberate trade-off: keeping the fighting in Iraq at a relatively low intensity instead of trying to bring it to a rapid conclusion at the price of dramatically increased violence.

On whose side, in whose interest, and to what end was such a thing 'decided'? NOT that the dillitory and incompetent Bush Administration could even 'decide' to allow or prevent such a thing.

OTOH, working on the assumption they could 'decide' to 'allow' the insurgency to persist in low-intensity violence and inflame sectarian divisions, how precisely could the Administration have "dramatically increased violence" as an alternative?

Surely the comment isn't to imply the option of outright genocide is acceptable, is it?

Now one may argue whether or not this was the correct decision, but one should not dishonestly distort the facts.

Take your own advice, berk. The idiots in the White House couldn't decide to get drunk if they were locked in winery, never mind manage the chaos they've unleashed in Iraq.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 9:50 pm | #

Anonymoose: keeping the fighting in Iraq

As opposed to fighting where?

As far as Iraq goes I think of the old saying: "When you find yourself in a hole, the best course of action is to quit digging." Mind you it doesn't say to bring in more diggers, or dig harder, or even to dig more intelligently...
Auntie Roo | 11.26.06 - 9:52 pm | #

Wow, anonymoose poses an absolute truth. The neocons with Paul Wolfowitz as their spokesman, insisted that peace could be maintained with just 100,000 troops. General Shinseiki sent the neocons into a tizzy when he told Congress that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed. I think Wolfowitz said something like "wildly off the mark" when asked for a reply to Shinseiki's statement. Either way, the mistake was called the single greatest error of the war. For my money, anyone who voted for this war is guilty of the biggest mistake.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:55 pm | #

From Jim Montague at 9:55pm:

For my money, anyone who voted for this war is guilty of the biggest mistake.

I believe the Army War College came to much the same conclusion earlier this year.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 10:03 pm | #

CUI BUNO?

Propaganda in the press is so dangerous because it works so well. When Justin Raimondo wrote his article about questioning the story being put forth about the spy being killed by Putin's associates recently, I thought "What???"

Every single word I had read in the press made it seem like a "case closed" situation. But then I started to read up on the facts a little more and realized that whatever the truth is, I would never know by just reading the MSM.

Here are some of Michael Young's commenters' observations. I don't know if any of these commenters are right, but I DO know that Michael Young has been wrong so I'd rather listen to what they have to say now. Just as I would never trust Baker et al to come up with a good plan for getting out of Iraq when they have been wrong all along. Btw, I include a lot of comments about the Lebanon assassination because I have a feeling that is going to turn out to have a big impact on the course of events.

Have Your Say

Writing about realism should have some realist sense. It is strange that Mr. Young could not refer that the U.S. considered Syrian presence in Lebanon occupation only after Syria's refusal to help the American army occupy its neighhbour Iraq... I do not want to exclude Syria from a list of suspects, but to conclude that Syria is the perpetrator is preposterous....As for Iraq, Syria would be still enjoying its hateful presence in the Lebanon if it chose to support the U.S. war. To exclude Syria from efforts to settle all Middle East issues, Iraq as one, is a recipe for failure. Realism proved it, at least up to this moment.

Mhd. Hasan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

I can barely believe the rubbish Mr Young has trotted out. What the heck would Syria have to gain by assassinating Gamayal at this precise time? Absolutely non. Yet, the great and the good of Brit/US broadcasting and media push this baloney. There is only one candidate who wants civil war in Lebanon. Only one candidate who badly needs the christians to go to war with Nazrallah. Here's a clue, Starts with I, ends in L. How we doing Mr Young? Further, regarding the ex Russian spy who has just died in hospital. Hardly worth the Russians time. Who is at war with Russia right now? Why, it is the domicile oligarchs who exile in UK, USA and Israel. The Russians are brutes and who can trust them, our media chants. Isn't it amazing just how many ordinary people trust the Russians versus the charlatans who grabbed resources via the corrupt and mentally unstable Yeltsin. And our own increasingly creepy media(s) coverage? Shame on you Times of London.

Katy, CA, USA/UK

Michael B, You've either missed the thread or been asleep. There NEVER were any WMD's..........David Kelly* told us that at the start AND he died in mysterious circumstances.

Angie & Tony, Alicante, Spain

If you kind readers will permit, a further post from John in the provinces. After reading the comments on "...engaging with Syria" kindly consider one other point. The basic question is whether or not Syria is responsible for the five most notable assasinations in Lebanon in the past two years. No proof is presented. But were a subtle and powerful hand at work, it would be quite possible to dummy up "evidence" that would falsely indicate the responsibility. CUI BONO? If you google this latin phrase, you will find it to be a maxim of Cassius, quoted by Cicero, meaning "for whose advantage" and generally used as "what is the good of it". Most clearly, these assasinations were not to Syria's benefit. Does anyone see the hand of Mossad? Would Israel stand to gain from civil war in Lebanon? We cannot know the truth at this time, but if we apply the maxim of Cassius, we may possibly discern the hidden truth.

John, Seattle, USA

If a Russian is killed it must be Putin. If someone is killed in Lebanon it must be Syria. Is there a pattern or am I just a suspicious mind? You can trust that there will be paid hands like Micheal Young and forums such as this for an attempt to try and pull wool over people's eyes. Just analyse the certain premise on which this article is based. The presumption that Syria is responsible then the hidden agenda - don't engage Syria. Where self-interest - whose self-interest - translates into perpetual aggression and war in which other people bear the suffering and devastation. Just today alone 115 Iraqis have been reported killed. Who is shedding tears for these Iraqi and the Palestenians? Decent and fairminded people are starting to see through smoke screen that is the axis of destruction and their news agenda such as this article....

justice4peace, London, England

"Syria has encouraged its powerful Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, to bring down the Government". This is what one hears all the time and is perhaps a logical conclusion - but what actual proof, if any, is there?

Grant Chester, NY, USA


On the day Syria resumes ties with Iraq Iran agrees to hold talks with Iraq and Syria about bringing peace to the country, this provacative assasination occurs. Instantly, Bush, Blair and the Western media accuse Syria of involvement. Where is the evidence? How can Bush instantly argue that Syria and Iran were involved? Why are they so quick to point the finger? I ask the question: Who has most to gain from this?.....They do not want Iran or Syria to be given any political kudos for bringing peace to Iraq. Their ultimate aim is to coerce the US into bombing Iran.

Sam, Edinburgh,

I must admit that I find it difficult to believe anything coming out of Blair and Bush's mouths these days and believable as it seems that the rogue regime in Damascus might have had a hand in the assasination of Gemayel, it just looks too convenient....

Dele Farotimi, Lagos, Nigeria

Syria's involvement is not established as a fact. USA could just as easily be responsible. Jumping to conclusions is as bad as "spin"...

Maicin, Camden, London

Syria, as they have made clear, have nothing to gain from this assassination at a time when they are being invited back to the diplomatic table to try to help fix the Iraq disaster. However, if I was a member of the Isreali war cabinet (enraged by by talk to invite mortal enemies like Syria and Iran to become part of the middle east solution) I would be very pleased by these unfortunate turn of events. Hezbullah sucked into a bloody civil war fighting on two fronts and Syria's stategic ambitions curtailed as they're placed firmly once more into the USA's Axis of Evil. Yep, whoever carried out this assassination, did a real big favour for Isreal.

Paulo Rodrigez, Manchester, UK

So how does 'engaging with Syria' look now? I would say as necessary as it always has been. A glance at the map will tell you it shares a border with Iraq, as Iran does. Is it possible to have a sustainable peace in the region without the total cooperation of immediate neighbours, I think not looking at Israels experience!

Kevin Sullivan, London,

[*David Kelly
From Wikipedia.
David Christopher Kelly CMG (May 17, 1944 – July 17, 2003) was an employee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (MoD), an expert in biological warfare, and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly's discussion with Today programme journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government's dossier on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq inadvertently caused a major political scandal. He was found dead days after appearing before a Parliamentary committee investigating it.]
Eyes Wide Open | 11.26.06 - 10:04 pm | #

---

Kovie | 11.26.06 - 5:09 pm | #
"I'm hearing Reyes, Holt and Dicks as possible picks beyond the MSM's phony Harman-Hastings choice."

I emailed Clemons at the Washington Note and asked him if he'd do a piece on this. Pelosi has a rotten choice here. He replied that there was no way that any Dem would simply ignore seniority--so, as these two are ranking democrats on the committee, it has to be one or the other of them.
casual observer | 11.26.06 - 10:15 pm | #

being one of the extreme anti-war voices, I want you to know that I do recommend that we give Texas to the Israelis.


First, they will do a better job running Texas than anyone else ever has

and Second, they can have it as their own country, give Palestine back to the Palestinians,

and finally, all the people in Texas currently can move to Oklahoma and pretend they are Iraqi refugees or Katrina refugees. It will be good for their souls.
Susan | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 10:39 pm | #

Haha,I sure hope shooter and daleyrocks are from Texas. But who is going to deal with the civil war that is bound to break out in Oklahoma? How will we deal with the oil in Texas? Use it to pay for the war in Oklahoma?
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 10:52 pm | #

Are the Saddam comments by Shooter/whoda meant as jokes? I think they are.

However, the sad thing is, they (their commnets about putting Saddam back in) now sound like damn good plausible alternatives to me. What have we got left?

Saddam was a brutal blood-thirsty tyrant, but he DID have a handle on that country and made everyday life (such as it coud be under such a regime) somewhat normal.

At least you could go to school without being kidnapped.
At least you go to the market without getting blown up.
At least there were doctors who hadn't left the country,
At least you could (normally) go to sleep without worrying whether your neighbor would drill a hole in your head overnight.
At least you could go to/from mosque without fearing your life.

Hindsight is everything, but I'm sure most Iraqis now look back on Saddam's time as 'the good old days'.

As an American--thinking back when we didn't have 3000 unnecssarily dead Americans and 600 billion dollars down the sewer,
I do too.

It's pretty damn sad when the halcyon days are when Saddam was supreme, don't you think?
twit | 11.26.06 - 10:54 pm | #

"First, they will do a better job running Texas than anyone else ever has"

Well now, I don't know about that. Sam Houston did alright, not to mention Ima Hog.

Still, it would be ironic if everyone in Texas had to move up to OK. It happened before, when by the 1870s we Texans had removed most all of the Native American tribes up to Indian Territory (Oklahoma). I'm sure the Comanches, Apaches, Caddo and Tonkawas would be just delighted to see us coming north across the Red River...
casual observer | 11.26.06 - 10:59 pm | #

being an anti-war voice that was 100% correct in 2002, I think the US troops should withdraw immediately.

It will get worse in Iraq when they do, but it will NEVER return to peace until after they are gone. And, the longer they wait to get the US troops out of there, the worse the violence on the ground will be in Iraq.

If they had listened to me in 2002, we would never have started this optional war on a pack of lies.... instead, we would have sent the liars to jail.

If they had listened to me in 2003 or 2004, then Iraq would be peaceful and stable by now. If they don't pull out until 2009, there will be nothing left of Iraq, they will have finished it off.


But what else do you expect from a pack of liars who claim imaginary WMDs and say things like "stuff happens" when a society is falling apart or "we don't do body counts" when untold numbers of innocents are being killed or "bring 'em on" when our troops are in harms way?


These people are psychopaths and we have got to stop them.
Susan | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 11:00 pm | #

Not to offend any Texas 'libruls' out there but a good quote from a friend of mine long ago:

'The only good thing that ever came out of Texas was Santa Ana on his way back to Mexico'.

Nothin' wrong with Texas, just too many Texicans there to suit me!
twit | 11.26.06 - 11:03 pm | #

it wasn't just the Texans who did the genocide on the native people - the entire southeast USA joined in.


And today, we are doing genocide against the Iraqi people - for pretty much the same reasons to: they got what we want and our current leaders don't care one whit who they kill -
they are psychopaths.
Susan | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 11:04 pm | #

There are many Republicans in the nation who favor the US staying in Iraq.

With 20 to 100 million troops, the US might be able to stabilize the situation.

I await Republican volunteers lining up by the tens and tens of millions to help live out their dreams of world-building in Iraq.
El Cid | 11.26.06 - 11:06 pm | #

all this is about as material as many fictions Hitler operated under up to May 1945 about state and capacity of the Wehrmacht.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.26.06 - 7:37 pm | #

What punishment we decide to render the people that did this to us has yet to be determined.
armagednoutahere | 11.26.06 - 7:41 pm | #

If who'd-a, Daley and shooter weren't such blind Bush-cultists, they'd be arranging passage to Argentina rather than posting their nonsense here.
exasperanto | 11.26.06 - 11:08 pm | #

As I pointed out around 1:30 or so today, we have no options left.

We had MANY opportunities to take a different path, but the Bush crowd not only chose not to take them but to shout down those who did.

At this point, I feel if we do get the Baker Commission negotiations with Iran and Syria over Iraq, there will be nothing left to negotiate--no one
will heed what happens around the table.

I think Iran and Syria recognize this--hence their attempt to end around us with negotiations this weekend, to no avail.

The negotiations will with Iran and Syria will amound to Sartre's play, NO EXIT. Three characters in everlasting hell who despise each other, can do nothing but antagonize each other for amusement, with absolutley no way of affecting their predicament.

Resistance is futile.
twit | 11.26.06 - 11:11 pm | #

casual observer | 11.26.06 - 10:15 pm

I have mixed feelings about Clemons. While he was instrumental in helping to defeat the Bolton nomination, he often comes across as a bit clueless and naively optimistic at times. I can't point to specifics as I have a terrible memory for such things, but he's struck me as tending to give certain people who clearly do not deserve it the benefit of the doubt (of the McCain and Lieberman mold), accept things at face value, and oversimplify matters. Plus, he's got what to me comes across as a slightly right of center take on foreign policy. So I'd take his input on this matter with a grain of salt.

Especially seeing as that the intel committee specifically does not work as other committees due when it comes to seniority, which Clemons should have known. So neither Harman nor Hastings are "owed" the chairmanship just because they've been on it the longest, and anyone who claims otherwise is either shilling for one of them, or doesn't understand how this committee works.

Should she have seen her as well-qualified, I suspect that Pelosi would likely have made Harman chairwoman. But since she clearly does not view her as such (because, clearly, she is not), all bets are off as to who she will name. And I'd also discount the stories about how she's going to have a problem with the CBC if she doesn't name Hastings, seeing as she named Clyburn as whip and a number of senior African-American Dems will chair important committees and subcommittees.

There's still a chance that Pelosi will name one of these two, but I tend to doubt it. Who she does name, and how she does it, will say a lot about what kind of speaker she'll be, at least during her first year. I sincerely hope that she names someone who's both technically qualified and has a lot of personal integrity and strength, given the importance of this job these days--both in terms of fighting Islamic terrorism and the proliferation of WMD and dealing with other emerging foreign threats, and with respect to dealing properly with the warrantless wiretap and similarly illegal programs.
Kovie | 11.26.06 - 11:16 pm | #

"'The only good thing that ever came out of Texas was Santa Ana on his way back to Mexico'"

Oh come on now. It ain't that bad. Lots of good people came out of Texas-- Molly Ivins? Ann Richards? Van Cliburn? Bob Wills? Y.A. Tittle? Surely at least one of these rates higher than the much-despised (around here, anyway) Santy Anna?
casual observer | 11.26.06 - 11:27 pm | #

Kovie | 11.26.06 - 11:16 pm | #

He wasn't shilling for anyone--simply responding to an email--which was nice of him. He seems to run in those circles, so he certainly knows more about the workings there than I ever will (or want to).
casual observer | 11.26.06 - 11:41 pm | #

The Bush Administration made a deliberate trade-off: keeping the fighting in Iraq at a relatively low intensity instead of trying to bring it to a rapid conclusion at the price of dramatically increased violence. Now one may argue whether or not this was the correct decision, but one should not dishonestly distort the facts.
anonymoose

Ah, if only there were facts there to distort.

BTW, "whoda," it's spelled "Allahu akbar." And why is it that the completion of the program of training the Iraqi army is always about 18 months away?
Baldie McEagle | 11.27.06 - 12:02 am | #

In Leviathan, Hobbes says "...there can be but three kinds of commonwealth." Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy are their names. There are other forms named, but they are not other forms of government, but the same forms misliked. The name of the misliked democracy is anarchy.

Iraq is held anarchic because the occupying tyrant does not find Iraq's form of democracy to its liking. Iraq's democracy is well unified in its desire for the tyrant's withdrawal.

The occupation of Iraq has not been, is not now, and never will be constructive.
followthemoney | 11.27.06 - 12:23 am | #

"Seeking input from the neocons on how to solve the Iraq disaster would be like..."
...Dexter?
daveNYC | 11.27.06 - 12:29 am | #

Democrats Vow Investigations

Good.

The incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is promising an array of oversight investigations that could provoke sharp disagreement with Republicans and the White House.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., pledged that Democrats, swept to power in the Nov. 7 elections, would govern "in the middle” next year.

So what are they going to investigate?

Among the investigations he said he wants the committee to undertake:

The new Medicare drug benefit. "There are lots and lots and lots of scandals,” he said, without citing specifics.

Good. People love scandals. This will be a nice diversion to keep the public's eye off the War Party's continued warmongering and the Patriot Act's destruction of Constitutional protections and the lots and lots and lots of new surveillance spying tactics.

Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It "was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies,” Dingell said.

Good. Everyone including me likes to beat up on Halliburton. People hate crooks. This should wrap up about the time Bush leaves office and pardons Cheney for whatever he is found guilty of. Meanwhile tap, tap, tap, the work on Halliburton Hotel will continue.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Democrats do not want a fight with President Bush and want to prove they can govern.

"The first thing we’re going to do is try to work together on things we know we can accomplish,” Rangel said. "Rather than have the committee against the president, it’s not going to happen,” Rangel said.

Whew! Wouldn't want there to be any dissent in Washington. Why can't we all just get along?

Rep. Barney Frank, set to lead the House Financial Services Committee, said issues such as raising the minimum wage will be popular, even though the idea has been identified with liberals.

Liberals? How about fiscal conservatives who haven't been brainwashed by the notion of "free trade" whereby we export all our jobs to people overseas who work for $10 a week?

"In my own committee, the biggest difference you’re going to see is we’re going to return to help deal with the housing crisis that bites so many parts of our country socially and economically,” said Frank, D-Mass.

But they're going to let the Fed continue to create these housing crises with their insane monetary policies?

Three cheers for our two party system. It always works so well once the boys break bread and cut their deals.
.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.27.06 - 12:39 am | #

Any position the does not involve the first phase of withdrawal starting next month and completely out in 3 months is an extremist position.

Each commission member should have been REQUIRED to read 'The March of Folly' by Barbara Tuchman before convening the first session.
cal | 11.27.06 - 12:45 am | #

We already know what the Washington definition of "centrist" is, and realize that it is quite different from the dictionary definition. Instead of whining about this, why don't we do something about it? Invent a word to fit the Washington definition, and just start using it. I nominate the word "conventionalist".
Cowpunk | 11.27.06 - 1:29 am | #

In reading this, and the comments, I realize that, until recently, I had been convinced that we need to stay for awhile to provide support and a minimal amount of stability. But now I wonder if US troops are like rocks tossed into a hornet's nest. If we leave, the nest will eventually have to settle down.

Of course, the problem is that, by leaving, we lose any hope of control of the outcome on political, economic and civil rights fronts, not to mention control over the oil. But then, it seems apparent that the US has no actual control anyway. The government of Iraq will evolve in its own way. The people of Iraq will decide how painful the process will be.

Iraq is a no-win situation for the U.S. If we stay, we exacerbate the hostilities by our presence. If we leave, we are abandoning Iraqis to sort the mess out on their own. Is it part of our national paternalism to believe they are incapable? Is the anxiety about leaving the country in disarray the moral anxiety of neglecting one's responsibilities to those we have placed in jeopardy? Or is it fear that, if left to their own devices, the Iraqis may prefer yet another government hostile to U.S. interests? Is our fear of leaving based primarily on self-interest?
DJ | 11.27.06 - 2:27 am | #

casual observer | 11.26.06 - 11:41 pm

I never said or implied that Clemons was shilling for anyone or that he's dishonest. I just meant that his take on things is one that I've sometimes found wanting for someone this close to the foreign policy elite of our country. He just gets it wrong from time to time, and on this matter, I think that he's getting it wrong. Not just on Pelosi's choice being between these two, but on the seniority thing. It simply does not exist on this particular committee, and he should know that. If she does pick one of these two, it will probably be Harmon, but I think that she'll pick someone other than these two. She has to.
Kovie | 11.27.06 - 3:20 am | #

BTW, "whoda," it's spelled "Allahu akbar."

I don't know Arabic, but I do know Hebrew, and the two, being closely related Semetic languages, have much in common. E.g. "land" is Aretz in Hebrew (as in the Israeli daily) and Artz in Arabic. "King" is Melech in Hebrew and Malik in Arabic.

And in Hebrew, "hu" is the masculine form of "is", as in "AllaHU Akbar" means "Allah is Great", which I assume is what this means in Arabic. Sorry to get pedantic but precision and accuracy in dealing with other cultures and languages is important to me. It's not just about getting it right but about respect.

Something that this administration clearly doesn't give a damn or know the first thing about.
Kovie | 11.27.06 - 3:26 am | #

BTW, I am not attempting to condemn the Democrats before they even get started by voicing these concerns about staying in Iraq. I am merely hoping that if everyone starts screaming, "get out now", "get out now", maybe the public can, this one time, overcome the resistance in our government and force them to do the right thing.

Latest news:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders called Sunday for an end to Iraq's sectarian conflict and vowed to track down those responsible for the war's deadliest attack.

But as they went on national television to try to keep Iraq from sliding into an all-out civil war, fighting between Iraqi security forces and Sunni Arab insurgents raged for a second day in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province north of Baghdad.

By the end of the day, the province's latest casualty figures were a microcosm of the brutality in Iraq: 17 insurgents killed, 15 detained, 20 civilians kidnapped and three bodies found....

On Monday the military said three U.S. Army soldiers were killed and two wounded during combat operations in Baghdad....

Three more soldiers dead. Every day we stay, there will be more.

The deaths raised to at least 2,878 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003

For what? Nobody ever answers that question.

One of the main challenges for U.S.-led forces in recruiting and training Iraqi military and police forces is that they are often infiltrated by insurgents who kill and kidnap in disguise.

This isn't a "challenge". It's going to quickly become an impossibility. You can't ask people to commit suicide, especially when you can't even tell them what they are fighting for.

"We promise the great martyrs that we will chase the killers and criminals, the terrorists, Saddamists and Takfiri (Sunni extremists) for viciously trying to divide you," Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Sunni Parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani and Kurdish President Jalal Talabani said in their joint statement on state-run TV.

Unless they can bring back the dead, what good will this do?

"We could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands," he [King of Jordan]said, citing conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon and the decades-long strife between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Several commission members, including some Democrats, are discussing proposals that call for a declaration that within a specified period of time, perhaps as short as a year, a significant number of American troops should be withdrawn, regardless of whether the Iraqi government’s forces are declared ready to defend the country.

PERHAPS AS SHORT AS A YEAR? Are these people insane? Not to mention if they are willing to withdraw them then even if the Iraqi government forces cannot defend the country, why don't they just withdraw them NOW and spare the bloodshed in the interim?

Is this partly all about the fact that the US has not been able to lock up the desirable oil contracts yet?

The recommendations of the commission, an independent advisory group created at the suggestion of several members of Congress, are expected to carry unusual weight because its members, drawn from both political parties, have deep experience in foreign policy. They include its co-chairmen, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman.

These are the same people who have been in support of Bush's policies all along. Why don't they just ask Feith, Adelman, Kristol, Horowitz and Pam from Atlas Shrugs to join them?

“I think there is fear that anything they say will seem like they are etched in stone tablets,” said a senior American diplomat. “It’s going to be hard for the president to argue that a group this distinguished, and this bipartisan, has got it wrong.”

Yuck.

Mr. Bush spent 90 minutes with commission members in a closed session at the White House two weeks ago “essentially arguing why we should embrace what amounts to a ‘stay the course’ strategy,” said one commission official who was present.

Back to reality.

Excerpted from a transcript of CNN's "Reliable Sources":

KURTZ: If you're sitting at home watching it on TV, you see mass kidnappings, suicide bombings, mosque bombings, death squads. When you're there as a journalist, does the situation seem as chaotic to you as it does to a viewer?

ROBERTS: You know, Howie, I had a perception of Iraq going in, and it was the first time I'd been there in three-and-a-half years. I got out a couple of days after the Saddam statue fell, after the initial invasion. So it was quite a shock to go back and see the chaotic state that the country was in. And as -- I guess you could say as realistic as my perceptions were about going in there, the reality on the ground far exceeded that.

The place is a mess. It's an absolute mess. There is nowhere you can go in the Baghdad area as a Western journalist without an escort, where you could feel safe from being kidnapped, shot at, whatever. The amount of death that's on the streets of Baghdad for U.S. forces and for the Iraqi people is at an astronomical level...

ROBERTS: Because television can't -- and even print -- can't fully capture the scope of what's going on in Iraq. And to some degree, too, over the last three-and-a-half years, Howie, it's become the daily traffic report, the daily drumbeat.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.27.06 - 4:33 am | #

---

Withdrawal from Iraq now will be less painful than years from now

It is better to bite the bullet and start to pull our troops out today.

Hey! He took the words right out of my mouth.

You know what this all reminds me of? The difference between Robinson Crusoe and a bunch of "help me, help me" Depends Crowd wuzzes. They're afraid to take any action for fear of being criticized if there are unfortunate consequences so they remain paralzyed while things spin totally out of control.

Every action taken may have dire consequences. If we wait for an action that has no risk we will never act.

Why are we governed by such weak people?
Eyes Wide Open | 11.27.06 - 4:59 am | #

I agree with cowpunk that we need some new words to describe people's political positions, and I think that his word "conventionalist" is a good start for centrists (though perhaps some brain-storming could produce something better). Centrists are people who spout conventional wisdom, even if it is based on illogicalities or dodgy assumptions. They are people who are afraid to switch on their brains in case that leads them to question the conventional wisdom, or leads them to say things that are similar to people they consider as "extremists".

The whole Iraq misadventure is a tale of conventional politicians who were afraid of asking some basic questions; and "extremists" who asked those questions and were ignored. What we are now seeing is the desparate attempt of the conventionalists to continue to exclude the "extremists" and to pretend that no-one ever asked those simple questions, which could have avoided this mess.
guano | 11.27.06 - 5:11 am | #

Kovie | 11.27.06 - 3:20 am | #

"I never said or implied that Clemons was shilling for anyone or that he's dishonest."

"and anyone who claims otherwise is either shilling for one of them, or doesn't understand how this committee works"

Come on, man. Take it easy.
casual observer | 11.27.06 - 8:21 am | #

Baker is all about protecting President Bush and the Republican party from this failure of a War. Everything else is secondary.
This is why you are seeing Conservative think tank regurgitators like Noron and Crowley prattle on about Democrats being in a bind. It's all about covering the GOP as it changes its mind and finds a leader 'strong' enough to lead us out of Iraq. The republicans want to make sure that the Democrats get zero credit with the public for ending the Iraq war. Many media tools are ready to oblige. Fortunately, we are watching and some journos are rediscovering what their profession should be (mostly in print, TV is a wasteland except for the satire shows and Keith O. but hey JD Roberts was pretty good.)
Sceptic | 11.27.06 - 10:20 am | #

Kovie,
I agree. This whole controversy for the intellegence committe is big time BS. Harmon is compromised because of AIPAC and frankly she was a bit of a GOP enabler in the 109th congress, which is to say she was politicking instead of doing her job which is oversight no matter whose feelings get hurt Aclee's past is a veto. Fortunately there are many fine 3rd choices. Any pundit who calls this a loss when she enivitably does pick a third choice is either lazily repeating GOP talking points or choosing to play at being the anti democrat voice in the media.

It's all so much bullshit signifying nothing.
Sceptic | 11.27.06 - 10:28 am | #

not to mention control over the oil

What control?

The Iraqis pump it out of the ground, sell it into the world market, people buy it...

Is that not a good set-up?

(Would that it ever happens...)
exasperanto | 11.27.06 - 10:32 am | #

Wasn't there some right-wing screed in print a few years ago titled "The Only Thing in the Middle of the Road is Roadkill"?

Rather an appropriate sentiment for this Commission's work, isn't it?
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.27.06 - 10:39 am | #

There is just no way Bush2 will get out of Iraq, no matter what anybody says or does. It would be admitting that his Vision was wrong. He can't do that, and he won't do it.

So unless something truly unusual happens, we are in Iraq for 2 more years, minimum.

No real point discussing it.

A shame all those people had to die and will die for one little man's ego.
Svensker | 11.27.06 - 11:00 am | #

Quote: 'As the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate reality may take the decisions out of the hands of the self appointed deciders. If there is a general countrywide all out civil war, as seems increasingly possible, our exposed supply lines and hardened posts in crowded cities could prove hard to defend indeed. The consensus inside Iraq might just be that the US will have to pull out very quickly to avoid losing large numbers of soldiers.'

Les, the frightening thing about that statement is that it is quite possibly not just what may happen, but what is planned. The powers that be would knowingly allow it to happen, blame the collapse on sympathizers/Iran/Syria, and then congratulate themselves on getting the troops out in the nick of time.

Come to think of it, we should erase all these posts in case we give them the idea.
Nick | 11.27.06 - 12:03 pm | #

"daleyrocks" is hard of reading:

Whaddaya mean no options!

I said:

"No. There are no 'good' options. Just less bad ones."

Have some imagination. Jonathan Chait today suggests reinstalling Uncle Saddam in power as a solution. Why didn't Bush think of that? Doh!

It is an option. Not one I support. Why, just the other day, some of the warhawks wer suggesting something similar; not Saddam, but a 'strong-man' of his stature and 'resolve" that would do what needed to be done. IOW, put in a dictator (but one that supposedly is beholden to us, as we've done over and over and over and over for the last century usually with bad and asnguinary results, and the hell with this "democracy" crapola. Dubya's not real appreciative of this course, because it would make an absolute mockery of the last and lousiest reason Dubya put forth as to why we started the war in the first place, and that would make the 2800+ dead soldiers such a monstrous disaster that perhaps he couldn't even sleep at night.... But there you have it: The hawks are now saying the best way to "fix" things they broke is to put a dictator back in (as long as his name ain't Saddam ... after all, the RW is not all that shy of dictators under any circumstance, to be sure).

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 2:08 pm | #

Come on, man. Take it easy.
casual observer | 11.27.06 - 8:21 am

Well, if you take a look at the second quote of mine you cited, you will note that I said that someone who claims what Clemons has claimed is EITHER a shill or ignorant about the workings of the house intel committee.

And if you take a look at my other remarks on this topic, you'll see that I clearly believe that it's the latter. I.e. that Clemons is NOT a shill, but rather simply ignorant about how this committee works. Which he clearly is.

I.e. it doesn't promote according to seniority, or at least seniority alone. This has been widely disseminated even in the usually inaccurate and/or dishonest MSM, so I'm surprised that Clemons doesn't know this, especially in light of his many connections in DC.

Thus my claim that he can occasionally be or come across as a bit clueless. I stand by that.

So frankly, I don't know what I need to "take easy", since I was just making sure that I wasn't seen as accusing Clemons of being a shill, which I wasn't.

In any case, I'm sure that you've seen Glenn's most recent post, in which he basically validates my assertion that there is no seniority on the intel committee, and that all this MSM hooplah about Pelosi's choice being between these two is just so much nonsense. And Clemons should know better than to parrot it.
Kovie | 11.27.06 - 2:14 pm | #

It's all so much bullshit signifying nothing.
Sceptic | 11.27.06 - 10:28 am

Well, it is, of course, bullshit, of the pretty much standard fare by now MSM variety. But it does signify something, in my opinion. Namely, that the MSM either continues to be almost willfully clueless about what's really happening here, or is stoking the phony "controversy" theme because it's good for ratings and their careers, or else is actively or subconsciously shilling for the anti-Pelosi side.

Glenn has a good take on it in his post today, and I think that it is indisputible that this is going on here. I don't know which journalist, pundit and MSM outlet is guilty of which of these professional acts of incompetence and/or dishonesty, but that it is going on is pretty hard to deny. And what it signifies is that there are agendas being advanced here--be they of the media and/or career-promoting kind or of the political agenda-promoting kind--that we all have to be aware and wary of.

It's interesting how, once you finally figure out the "magic decoder ring" (otherwise known as a bullshit detector) for understanding the MSM, it's a lot easier to see through the crap and be able to tell the truth from the bullshit. Truth, like bullshit, has a certain odor or texture to it that becomes easier and easier to tell apart the more you observe these people. It comes down to enlightened--as opposed to knee-jerk--skepticism.

I'd love for Glenn to devote a series of posts about this important topic, given how fundamentally dishonest, partisan and/or clueless the MSM tends to be, and yet how vital a role it plays in informing the public and determining peoples' opinions on so many important topics. This is a HUGELY important problem that BEGS to be addressed more aggressively. The fine books by Alterman, Brock and Boehner only just begin to do so properly.
Kovie | 11.27.06 - 2:30 pm | #

Why would you put someone (i.e. neocons) on a group who was wrong about virtually everything involving the country (i.e. Iraq) on which they would be trying to find concensus on? You want experts, or at least those that know what they don't know. You want people willing to find concensus, not those who have to protect their positions. You need people who haven't left their brain at the door.
ET | 11.27.06 - 2:33 pm | #

What you mean "we", paleface?

UK troop levels in Iraq to fall

A "drawing down" of troops did not mean a withdrawal, he said
The number of UK troops in Iraq is set to be "significantly lower by a matter of thousands" at the end of next year, the defence secretary has said.

Des Browne said it was hoped that local Iraqi forces would take control of Basra, in the south of the country, in the spring.
Caligula would have blushed | 11.27.06 - 3:57 pm | #

William Shawcross wrote an article in the Guardian (of London) on 1st August 2002 in which he ranted and raved about Saddam and his WMD and why Iraq had to be invaded, and then he said that it didn't matter who replaced Saddam, it could be a military man. Shawcross is someone who has contacts in high places, so I guess that the plan back then was to get rid of Saddam Mk I and put in a Saddam Mk II (and the whole cycle would start again). Between then and March 2003, not much was said about what would replace the regime if it was changed, we were all too busy arguing about WMD.(We know Iraq has WMD. Oh no we don't. Oh yes we do.) When WMD stubbornly refused to be found, the narrative changed again, and it was all about democracy. So we shouldn't be surprised if the idea of a "strongman" re-emerges, though it's probably too late for even that option.
guano | 11.27.06 - 6:29 pm | #

Hey Glenn, I see this post is now on Lew Rockwell - congrats on making it to libertarian central. ;)
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 11.28.06 - 10:18 am | #

Bizarre direction here. Most of the Democrats who were elected earlier this month are of the "centrist" mindset that the WaPo has come to adopt.

Don't I recall Mr Greenwald cheering a "crushing landslide" victory for those same centrist Democrats?

What's the story here? Hypocrisy only exists in Republicans?

Wow. That's news! What pithy insights!

It seems the new formula for Mr Greenwald's rare substantive essays is this: Wait until after the fact, then change your position to the one from which it appears safe -- to your readership who aren't well-informed.
wet nurse | 11.28.06 - 11:42 am | #

Glenn has a good take on it in his post today, and I think that it is indisputible that this is going on here. I don't know which journalist, pundit and MSM outlet is guilty of which of these professional acts of incompetence and/or dishonesty, but that it is going on is pretty hard to deny. And what it signifies is that there are agendas being advanced here--be they of the media and/or career-promoting kind or of the political agenda-promoting kind--that we all have to be aware and wary of.

Something reeks like bad Limburger here.

Mr Greenwald's essays recently are not really vastly superior to the WaPo. Just because he's telling you what you want to be true, what confirms your very scant suppositions on the matters about which you haven't much knowledge, doesn't mean he's doing a great job of helping you see the truth.

A better man would acknowledge that he's playing songs that his audience knows, like a good musician who tries to make ends meet by playing crowd favorite Top 40 pap as a wedding band musician.
wet nurse | 11.28.06 - 11:46 am | #

wet nurse is a coward.
skeeenah | 11.30.06 - 10:29 am | #

sonador horse racing sonador horse racing sonador horse racing // realistic weight loss goals realistic weight loss goals realistic weight loss goals
Jamie | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:46 am | #