Seats: 24 Green , 28 Blue, 21 in the air 選區劃分

立委選區劃分案 二十一縣市採中選會原案
21 Cities and Counties drawn according to CEC's original draft
　

（中央社記者李佳霏台北三十一日電）中央選舉委員會今晚將公告「第七屆立法委員直轄市縣市選舉區劃分變更案」，在全國二十五個縣市中，二十一個縣市採中選會規劃的原方案，高雄市、台北縣、桃園縣、屏東縣四個縣市則依院際協商結論，調整中選會規劃的方案，其中屏東縣變動幅度較大。
...
對於八個有爭議的縣市選區劃分案，立法院長王金平及行政院長蘇貞昌今天在台北賓館持續協商，最後決定以抽籤決定採用何種版本，抽籤結果是台北市、苗栗縣、彰化縣及台中市採用中選會的原劃分案，高雄市照立法院協商意見、台北縣照台聯黨團提案、桃園縣照民進黨團提案、屏東縣照無盟親民黨國民黨及台聯案。

As far as the 8 districts that hadn't been agreed on, Wang Jin-ping (KMT) and Su Chen-chang (DPP) yesterday came to an agreement by drawing straws. The result was that Taipei city, Miaoli county, Chuanghua county, and Taichung city were drawn in accordance with the CEC's original draft. Kaohsiung City was drawn according to a legislative concensus, Taipei county along the TSU's draft bill, Taoyuan County according to the DPP's draft, and Pingtung County according to the draft brought by the Nonpartisan Union/PFP/KMT/TSU.

Here is a direct link (.doc) to the CEC's maps they had proposed, and here is the text (.doc) of the proposal.

ANALYSIS: 立委選區劃定 北更藍南更綠 (自由時報)

以二○○四年三月總統選舉、當年十二月立委選舉，兩次選舉的藍綠得票情形分析下屆七十三席區域立委之爭，出現一個有趣結果，在藍綠各自都整合之下，以總統 選舉來看，泛綠可以四十席比泛藍三十三席勝出，以立委選舉來看，泛藍則以四十二席比三十一席勝出，因此，綠營應以維持總統選舉的得票為戰略目標，藍營則全 力確保延續立委選舉的戰果。

民進黨正積極部署，是否採排藍民調、總統與立委選舉是否二合一，民進黨與台聯如何整合，都列為重大政治議程。國民黨為求二次政黨輪替，除與親民黨簽署國親聯盟，強化合作關係，企圖穩住泛藍國會過半席次外，也透過立院各種杯葛以及提案修法，期待透過立委選舉，直探二○○八。

If we use the 2004 presidential election as a basis for comparison, and assume the blues and greens both are consolidated, then the 73 directly elected seats would be split 40 Green - 33 Blue. If we use the last legislative election as a base, they'd be split 31 Green - 42 Blue. A second Libery Times article proposes a possible 37-34 split based on DPP/KMT votes. In other words, this plan creates a number of competitive seats.

Most northern areas will be safely blue; most southern areas safely green; and the main contention will be in the center of the country. My own analysis of the Liberty data shows 24 safe green seats and 28 safe blue seats.

The 21 most important and competitive districts of the 73 are:

1. the 1st district of Miaoli County
   
2. the 8 districts in Taichung County and City
3. the 4 districts in Changhua County
4. the 2 districts in Yunlin County
5. the 2 districts in Nantou County
6. 1 district in Taipei County, 1 in Kaohsiung City, and 2 in Pingtung county (not sure which districts though)

Here's a table for the "safe seats" that I pulled together using that Liberty data:

Location	Green	Blue
Taipei City	1	7
Taipei County	4	7
Keelung City	0	1
Taoyuan County	1	5
Hsinchu County	0	1
Miaoli County	0	1
Ilan County	1	0
Hualien County	0	1
Taitung County	0	1
Lienchiang County	0	1
Kinmen County	0	1
Penghu County	0	1
Chiayi City	1	0
Chiayi County	2	0
Tianan City	2	0
Tainan County	3	0
Kaohsiung City	4	0
Kaohsiung County	4	0
Pingtung County	1	0
Total	24	28

Taiwan Solidarity Union, 台聯

There's a lot of news in Taiwan lately, but most can be quickly summarized.

• The unconstitutional National Communications Commission(NCC), Taiwan's FCC, is structured to allow legislators to appoint NCC members based on the number of lawmakers each party has in the legislators. In otherwords, to make what should be an independent committee of experts into a political arm of the KMT. Despite this practice being declared unconstitutional, the KMT continues to use it and hopes to extend the model to the Central Election Commission (CEC). As far as I'm concerned, a public lottery for CEC or NCC seats would be a better way to assign it than letting legislators do it on partisan lines, especially something as important as the Election Commission!
• The legislature may miss its day to finish redistricting negotiations, which will result in something of a crisis considering the CEC wants to just use it's old plan if the politicians can't agree. The politicians say that's illegal. Conflict looms (this is of course the reason the KMT wants to alter the makeup of the CEC, to make sure the districts are drawn in a way favorable to them). Update: The shape of districts that couldn't be agreed on were decided by drawing lots.
  
• A-bian has filed an application for a constitutional interpretation of his authority to classify information as a state secret, of the president's "state confidentiality authority" and his constitutional immunity.
• Taiwan will now longer call China "our country" in their school textbooks, a fantastic and long overdue piece of news.
  

All that aside, the big news in my mind is the new direction that TSU chairman Huang Kun-hui (黃昆輝) wants to take the party. "In his inauguration speech, Huang said he was mulling changing the party's name and modifying the party's platform to reflect its move from the left toward the center." Read the article linked there for details.

The day of these announcements, TSU spiritual leader, aka Mr. Democracy, aka Lee Teng-hui, didn't open his mouth. But he did today, and when he did he shocked the Taiwanese news world and confused a lot of people.

李登輝轉性 一覺醒來全世界都變了慌了！ (自立晚報)
李登輝：何必再追求台獨 (聯合新聞網)
李登輝否認搞台獨、想訪大陸、讚胡錦濤 (聯合晚報)
李否認搞台獨》綠營錯愕：真的嗎？ (聯合晚報)
李登輝考慮修正台獨路線？馬英九：正面做法 (中央社)
李登輝從未主張台獨？黃昭堂：不同角度看法不同 (中時電子報)
台聯:李登輝認為台灣主權獨立 堅持正名制憲 (中央社)
李登輝有意訪大陸 國台辦：注意到有關報道 (亞洲時報)
台聯：李登輝主張引進中資 未違反戒急用忍 (中央社)
李登輝放棄台獨？辜寬敏：不解與遺憾 (中央社)

As you can see, people are making a big fuss over very little, since the TSU and DPP have both held this position (that Taiwan needs not seek independence since it is already independent) for some time. It may help alter the TSU's image, though. Let's see what happens next.

The blues will use this to try and further divide the green side, too.

Some good news for a change

Iraqi Official Offers Terms From Militia to Avoid Fight (NY Times)
Bush Plans New Focus On Afghan Recovery (WaPo)

Response to Cheney's interview w/ Blitzer

Defending Iraq War, Defiant Cheney Cites 'Enormous Successes' (WaPo)

When Blitzer asked whether the administration's credibility had been hurt by "the blunders and the failures" in Iraq, Cheney interjected: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

In fact, Cheney said, the operation in Iraq has achieved its original mission. "What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said. "The world is much safer today because of it. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed. His sons are dead. His government is gone."

"If he were still there today," Cheney added, "we'd have a terrible situation."

"But there is," Blitzer said.

"No, there is not," Cheney retorted. "There is not. There's problems -- ongoing problems -- but we have in fact accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been here for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off." He added: "Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes and we will continue to have enormous successes."

Hahaha! There's too much to talk about here. Let's start at the beginning.

1) I see no evidence that the US, Iraq or the world are safer with Saddam out of power. America now faces prospects of a regional war, Al Qaeda-controlled provinces of Iraq (Al Anbar) and a sectarian break-up of the country that was previously a non-issue. The previous situation was much more stable.

2) The national elections aren't exactly a farce, but they aren't nearly as successful Cheney suggests. In many Sunni neighborhoods, Shiites swept polls because of Sunni boycotts (that makes many city councils very unrepresentative of their constituency and occasionally even hostile to them); Parliament has not met (NY Times) since November because so many politicians are living out of the country; and the United States has quietly supported delays in elections in the southern provinces because Sadr's block would have done so well (and because security is so bad). These are not trivial problems. They mean the government can do very little.

3) Saddam was certainly executed, but it is difficult to argue he was brought to justice. Just remember he was executed by a sectarian militia. And did you know that Al Sadr is holding on to the noose that hung him (Arab Times)?

OK, moving on. Cheney wants to talk about accomplishing objectives. Here are the objectives he laid out in March 2003 on Meet the Press versus his objectives as stated above (not too different):

January 24, 2007	March 16, 2003
Get rid of old regime	Replace the old regime
	Locate and destroy WMDs
	Preserve the territorial integrity of Turkey
	Stand up a broadly representative government of the Iraqi people that preserves the territorial integrity of Iraq

I think we can all agree that only of the original objectives, WMDs were a non-issue, that the territorial integrity of Turkey (code word for no Kurdish republic) is not yet a secured issue, and that just how broadly representative the Iraqi government is cannot be discussed in 2 minutes. Notice that physical security and economic well-being, the two most important things to most Iraqis, don't make the list in either case.

In summary, I'd like to know exactly how 600,000 dead Iraqis (pdf), Iraqi unemployment of 30-60%, ethnic cleansing in most neighborhoods of Baghdad, the curbing of freedom women once enjoyed, massive university and school shutdowns, 4 hours of electricity a day, a self-funding insurgency, fuck-ups in construction progress, militia control of neighborhoods and tons of oil smuggling qualify as an "enormous successes."

I think the answer is given in how Cheney could only point to the end of Saddam and elections to prove success.

The Art of War: Lessons for Bush

Just selections here from the opening paragraphs:

孫子曰：兵者，國之大事，死生之地，存亡之道，不可不察也。

Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.

It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin.
Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

故經之以五，校之以計，而索其情：一曰道，二曰天，三曰地，四曰
將，五曰法。道者，令民于上同意者也，可與之死，可與之生，民不
詭也。天者，陰陽、寒暑、時制也。地者，高下、遠近、險易、廣狹
、死生也。將者，智、信、仁、勇、嚴也。法者，曲制、官道、主用
也。凡此五者，將莫不聞，知之者勝，不知之者不勝。故校之以計，
而索其情。曰：主孰有道？將孰有能？天地孰得？法令孰行？兵眾孰
強？士卒孰練？賞罰孰明？吾以此知勝負矣。

The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors,
to be taken into account in one's deliberations.
These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
(4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete
accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him
regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
...
The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom,
sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness.

By method and discipline are to be understood
the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions,
the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance
of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the
control of military expenditure.

These five heads should be familiar to every general:
he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them
not will fail.

Going after Mahdi Army?

Thanks to Juan Cole for the tip off. The Arabic Dal Al-Hayat is reporting (translation) that

there are some secret paragraphs to the agreement between the Bush administration and the al-Maliki government in Iraq to act against militia leaders. The article suggests that the model of the US raid on an Iranian liason office in Irbil might be deployed against Mahdi Army leaders and against Sunni Arab guerrilla commanders. That is, such raids would be small, targeted, quick and involve kidnapping suspected wrongdoers.

"The article also quotes US ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, as saying that al-Maliki promised Bush that he would confront the [Shiite] Mahdi Army.

That might sound good, but I fear it is exactly this sort of strategy that could fragment the Mahdi Army at a time where the US benefits greatly from it being together. I feel this is the sort of thing that leads to a worst case scenario (as posted early) come into play.

Temporary Palestinian state?

Rice in Middle East (Reuters)

"Of course part of our responsibility is to give the moderate Palestinians a political horizon while providing the Israelis security," Livni said.

She did not give details, but Israeli officials said Livni and Rice had discussed the possibility of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders following the line of a barrier Israel is building in and around the occupied West Bank.

One senior Israeli official said Rice wanted to discuss some of the most sensitive issues, including the future of Jerusalem, with both sides "in order to see if there's space for progress on a Palestinian state in the next two years".

Abbas has repeatedly rejected the idea of a state with temporary borders. Palestinians fear such borders would become final, leaving them with a truncated state.

Even Xinhua and Egyptians (via AP) knows that "Palestinians are skeptical of the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders, fearing that the temporary borders would become the permanent one."

Personally, I find the idea interesting, but agree it would become another unilateral decision by Israel to make final borders. Negotiations would be out the window on East Jerusalem and the right of return.

On Iran's Legitimate Concerns and Why We Need Dialogue

Iran is frequently accused of fueling the insurgency and attacks on American troops in Iraq and attempting to project their influence there. This is almost universally described as unacceptable and inflammatory. I would like to mention some of Iran's legitimate concerns.

* First, Iran does not want an unstable Iraq. They want a clear winner, preferably SCIRI or JAM (or those two working together). They want to shift the balance of power away from the Sunni run states of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and over to their end. This will help them secure a border.

*Iran hates Al Qaeda and the Taliban, though obviously doesn't mind that they attack the US.

* Iran may want to keep America bogged down to keep itself safe. Iran may in fact be encouraging an insurgency or at least Anti-American actions in Iraq, but they are probably perfectly willing and able to change that policy. They just want to make sure the US isn't trying to extract itself from the mess of Iraq just to attack Iran. They certainly don't want the US to be capable of a ground invasion, though such a plan would be a disaster for the US again.

*Given the mutual distrust between Iran and the US, only dialogue could help us move in a direction that is less confrontational.

* The US position on the nuclear issue, that Iran can never have even a nuclear power station because they'd be too dangerous while the US may have all the nuclear warheads it wants, is fundamentally absurd and in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's conditions. The US must somehow come to a negotiated solution on this one.

The Case for Withdrawal

The rightists often ask about the consequences of a US withdrawal and if the liberals are aware of those consequences, which they normally describe as devastating. I would like to make the case for withdrawal by outlining best and worst case scenarios. Note that I consider these to be best and worst case scenarios no matter when we withdrawal, one or 15 years from now. So it has nothing to do with cut and run. Even if we hung around and the sectarian violence we see now improved enough for us to leave by even Bush's measure, I still think these are the likely consequences. Here are the scenarios:

Best case scenario: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Mahdi Army (Jaish al-Mahi or JAM) have some infighting, but eventually decide to work together to defeat Ba'athist and Sunni guerrillas. Nearly every neighborhood is divided on sectarian lines and armed to the teeth. Sistani at some point calls for peace. After some struggle, the Sunnis and Shiites come to some sort of agreement to hold the country together. The Kurds stay in place and don't announce independence. So-called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is decimated by Iraqi militias for being a super violent foreign organization.

It should be remembered that most things are already set up to lead to this sort of best case scenario. Most neighborhoods are now cleansed (few mixed neighborhoods remain). SCIRI and Mahdi occasionally get in scuffles, but don't have all out tensions. Sistani is not invested in much of anybody at this point. The Kurds have been calmer lately, not wanting to get dragged into the violence.

Worst case scenario: SCIRI, JAM, their rogue divisions, Ba'athists, other Sunni rebels, "Al Qaeda in Iraq," and Kurds fall on each other in something of a total free for all that has more to do with militia loyalty than sect. Massive foreign intervention takes place: Iran gets in on the side of SCIRI and/or JAM, while Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps Syria join the side of the Sunnis. These foreigners would provide at least funding and weak border patrols, and may even intentionally send personnel to assist the guerrillas. The Kurds declare independence, prompting Iranian and Turkish invasions in the north of Iraq (which could invite those other foreign players to stick their hand in too). Iran steps up support for Hezbollah and Hamas, who also come in conflict with Israel during this time of heightened tensions. The consequences eventually lead to an all out regional war in the Middle East.

This total disaster of an outcome becomes increasingly likely the longer the Americans are around and attempting to break up these militias with force (this will only criminalize and fractionalize the guerillas, weakening their unity and their ability to talk to each other after the US leaves). Foreign countries will become increasingly worried and prepared to intervene.

Also consider the effectiveness of the insurgency. If we read Carlos Marighella's Mini-manual of the Urban Guerrilla, we find that the Iraqi insurgency and militias have done almost everything they were supposed to do. They are seen as protectors of local neighborhoods and get cooperation there (though obviously JAM in particular has units with a reputation for just being thugs); they have successfully hit the nerve centers of the government, crippling oil production, electricity distribution, gas distribution, and the financial sector; they have infiltrated the police to a very large degree and to the army to a lesser extent; they hit and run and live to fight another day; they use intimidation and kill anyone who they consider a collaborator, helping to move any fence sitters in the neighborhood over to their side; they are now self-sustaining in terms of funding. In other words, they've done a great job being an insurgency.

We, on the other hand, just came up with an anti-insurgency manual in late December or early January. This does not give one much confidence. I believe the longer we are in Iraq, the messier it will get and the less able local forces will be able to work something out for themselves. Given this situation, I'm all for a near-immediate withdrawal of American troops.

"Supporting his son Moktada, Moktada, Moktada."

On the Gallows, Curses for U.S. and ‘Traitors’ (NYT)

The room was quiet as everyone began to pray, including Mr. Hussein. “Peace be upon Mohammed and his holy family.”

Two guards added, “Supporting his son Moktada, Moktada, Moktada.”

Mr. Hussein seemed a bit stunned, swinging his head in their direction.

They were talking about Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric whose militia is now committing some of the worst violence in the sectarian fighting; he is the son of a revered Shiite cleric, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, whom many believe Mr. Hussein ordered murdered.

“Moktada?” he spat out, mixing sarcasm and disbelief.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser, asked Mr. Hussein if he had any remorse or fear.

...

One of the guards, though, became angry. “You have destroyed us,” the masked man yelled. “You have killed us. You have made us live in destitution.”
Mr. Hussein was scornful: “I have saved you from destitution and misery and destroyed your enemies, the Persians and Americans.”
The guard cursed him. “God damn you.”
Mr. Hussein replied, “God damn you.”

The fact that Saddam was executed with a private militia is really a demonstration of the true state of things in Iraq. Let's get out of there, let SCIRI fight it out with JAM (and a few Ba'athists) , and save everyone some trouble.

I'm sorry, Iraq. I wish we could have prevented this mess.