Yea!

Looks like the Iraqis are going to help us get out of there.

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Maliki's advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine's rendering of the interview.

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Maliki's words had been "misunderstood and mistranslated," but it failed to cite specifics.

"Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate," Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. "I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation."

But the interpreter for the interview works for Maliki's office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Maliki's comments by The Times: "Obama's remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

Maliki's top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw.

Iraq

Just my latest thoughts on all the craziness in Iraq.

First, on the political front the a power struggle is opening up between the Mahdi Militia and a SCIRI/Da'wa alliance under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki being fought by the the army and Badr Corps, who are quickly being absorbed into the normal police and army (as opposed to the Sunni awakening councils, who are not getting official integration and who will be SCIRI/Da'wa's next problem).

The fighting in the south is coming in advance of the October elections, where Sadr and the Mahdi Army may be the most popular movement after citizens have seen how the current parties run things so corruptly (Mahdi's corrupt too, but only in charge of port smuggling down in Basra). Elections have already been postponed, and political fears of Sadr sweeping the South and derailing Da'wa's partition plan had to be at least as large of a concern as security when the postponements were made.

My general view on the Iraq war is that it was illegal and unjust; perhaps more importantly strategically, that it was an impossible task to invade, occupy, fix up and make an ally of this country in the first place; and that if we leave very soon or much later from now, the same power struggle is bound to occur anyway, with the same likely result -- an Iranian friendly Shiite authoritarian regime. The only question would be if Kurdistan would stick around or end up a regional minefield as Iran and Turkey moved in, and I don't see how the US staying longer makes a disaster less likely.

But, from a selfish US-based perspective, perhaps hanging around just a little longer will do the trick and make it so we can leave with minimum fall out. Perhaps al-Maliki will successfully crush Sadr's movement at great cost, thanks to the Badr Corps and American air power. With the south firmly consolidated, perhaps al-Maliki will then turn to crushing the Awakening Councils who have helped stabilize Sunni areas up until now (I don't believe he'll integrate them into the security forces or that they'll disband peacefully). And perhaps, with his partition plan, he'll find a way to work together with the Kurds. Perhaps, just perhaps, if we back this latest sectarian and political push by the Prime Minister to help consolidate his party's political domination of the country, he will be able to establish a regime ruthless enough to create a window for an American pull out that doesn't look quite like a retreat.

Or then again, maybe things will get much, much worse. Either way, with elections in October, the way this will play itself out might largely be determined before the US election or at least before the inauguration of the next president.

And whether we've helped create a new despot or brought Iraq to an absolute meltdown, we might get out of this mess pretty soon after all.

Old Problems Undermine New Security Plan for Baghdad

(NYT) -- I'm just going to post an extended quotation:

It was a translator working with the Americans, interviewed a day after the fact, who had overheard the Iraqi police tipping off the Iraqis. “They were telling people in the neighborhood to hide your weapons from the Americans,” he said. The police were Shiites, he said, and inclined to favor others of their sect in the district, which is mostly Shiite but has a considerable Sunni population.

On another patrol, an American commander said, Iraqi residents told American soldiers that a national policemen had warned them to hide anything incriminating including paraphernalia about Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite militia leader whose forces are targets of the Baghdad crackdown.

“Families told us he was warning people before we’d come in, ‘If you have this or that, then hide it before they get here,’ ” said First Lt. Andy Moffit, who led a platoon through Shaab and Ur. The major problem with Iraqi forces is not their tactical skill, but their “loyalties and integrity,” he said.

On that score, he said, “We’ve still got years to go.”

Fearful of police ties to the militias, some residents questioned by the Americans about militia activity refused to say anything until the police were led out of the room.

Moreover, some Iraqi forces made little effort to hide their true allegiance. In one police truck an amulet stamped with the image of Imam Hussein, the revered Shiite martyr, swung from a rearview mirror. Next to it was a green Shiite flag, taped to the inside of the windshield. The truck’s radio blared chants heard during Ashura, a Shiite religious holiday.

To many Sunnis the Iraqi forces remain little more than instruments of Shiite hegemony, and the Baghdad plan appears to have done little to change that view.

“They can’t protect the Sunnis in the Shiite districts, and they will never fight the militias because they are from the same sect,” said Ahmed al-Mashhadani, a Sunni resident of west Baghdad, where other Baghdad security operations took place last week. “We don’t trust them, and if American troops leave, we will call back the resistance platoons to protect ourselves.”

American troops in northeast Baghdad heard the same refrain from Shiites who said that only their own militias could protect them from Sunni insurgents. “Before, the Mahdi Army checkpoints used to check each vehicle that came in here,” lamented one Facilities Protection Service guard, a Shiite, at a warehouse in Ur. “Now, the Iraqi police aren’t really checking each vehicle.” ...

The thoroughness of the inspections can vary widely. In one hour at an Iraqi checkpoint in Karada, a mostly Shiite neighborhood, on Feb. 16, the police allowed more than 150 vehicles to pass while pulling over about 25. In only three cases did they open the trunks. They found nothing. At another checkpoint a mile away, near the Green Zone, most of the cars were pulled aside, and eventually traffic snaked for a mile.

Then a sedan containing six young men pulled up to barriers set up by interior ministry commandos. The driver, apparently referring to an unspecified militia, said, “I’m with the guys,” said an Iraqi reporter for The New York Times who had heard the exchange. The car was immediately sent through.

Commentary on Bush's press conference

Complete transcript here. Only selected portions are discussed on this site.

Bush: In other words, these are people that will kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective, which is to discourage the Iraqi people, to foment sectarian violence - and to, frankly, discourage us from helping this government do its job.

Yesterday there was a suicide bomber. In other words, there's an active strategy to undermine the Maliki government and its Baghdad security plan. And our generals understand that. They know that they're all aimed at, frankly, causing people here in America to say it's not worth it. ...

But it reminds me of how important it is for us to help them succeed. If you think the violence is bad now, imagine what it would look like if we don't help them secure the city, the capital city of Baghdad.

Al Qaeda does not benefit from a US troop withdrawal, since they'd be hunted down by Iraqi militias and wiped out. They do much better as long as they're able point to attacking US troops and protecting Sunnis in Al Anbar from Shiite death squads.

Further, they are using many classical insurgent strategies to hit our nerve centers: infrastructure that produces wealth and sustains people (oil), making people unwilling to cooperate with the US, and hurting the financial sector overall. Just smart moves on their part that will make the government and US look worse and worse. This can be hard to stop under any circumstances.

And we don't seem to have made any progress yet in changing the status or strength of local militias. They're just laying low.

People want to live in peace. They want to grow up in a peaceful environment. And the decision I made is going to help the Iraqi government do that.

It hasn't yet. And I don't think it will.

I concluded that to step back from the fight in Baghdad would have disastrous consequences for our people in America. That's the conclusion I came to. That's the conclusion members of my staff came to. It's the conclusion that a lot in the military came to.

And the reason why I say disastrous consequences, the Iraqi government could collapse, chaos would spread. There would be vacuum. Into the vacuum would flow more extremists, more radicals, people who have stated intent to hurt our people.

I've already made my argument for this in my case for withdrawal.

What's different about this conflict than some others is that, if we fail there, the enemy will follow us here. I firmly believe that. And that's one of the main reasons why I made the decision I made.

You shouldn't, since almost all of the fighting elements in Iraq are fighting on sectarian lines or are criminal gangs trying to make money. Foreign fighters determined to attack the US are a minority. I also firmly believe that the longer we're in Iraq not providing security, the more Iraqis or other foreigners will want to follow us here.

A successful strategy obviously - a successful security strategy in Baghdad requires more than just military action. I mean, people have to see tangible results in their lives. I mean, they have to see something better.

They not only have to feel secure where they live, but they've got to see positive things taking place.

These things are true, but I do not yet see them working.

The other day, the Iraqi government passed a $41 billion budget; $10 billion of which is for reconstruction and capital investment.

We've already spent far more than this on construction and gotten precious little done. There are still major problems providing gasoline, cooking fuel, running water and electricity.

They're in the process of finalizing a law that will allow for the sharing of oil revenues among Iraq's peoples.

This is a major issue and I hope as much as anyone that this law can be agreed on. If it is, it may really help calm down Sunnis who fear getting cut out of the oil money.

Part of the strategy in Baghdad is to clear, and then to hold, and then to build. We've been pretty good about clearing in the past. We haven't been good about holding; we being the Iraqi and coalition forces.

Yeah. We don't control the vast majority of the country or the capital. That says a lot.

But also part of the strategy is to make sure that we build. So we're giving our commanders flexibility with reconstruction money that they have at their disposal.

I honestly wish Iraqis and the US the best in this effort. It will be hard. It's made extra hard because building is hard and requires time and security; blowing stuff up is relatively easy.

Later this week, the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that opposes our new plan in Iraq before it has a chance to work. People are prejudging the outcome of this. They have every right to express their opinion, and it is a nonbinding resolution.

Soon, Congress is going to be able to vote on a peace of legislation that is binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops.

People are not opposing the plan "before it has a chance to work" for no reason. They see no rationale for a "more of the same" approach, especially when nobody in the administration can really say convincingly why it should work this time. They just say "because it has to."

At the six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea agreed to specific actions that will bring us closer to a Korea Peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons. ... This is a unique deal.

...This is good progress. It is a good first step. There's a lot of work to be done to make sure that the commitments made in this agreement become reality. But I believe it's an important step in the right direction.

Agreed. wonderful news. Seriously, congratulations on making the deal, even though you could have cut it two years ago and avoided seeing a nuclear North Korea. In any case, it's a good deal and a good first step, as you say.

Q: General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq do not, by themselves, implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible?

BUSH: Yes...

Q: And how can you retaliate against Iran without risking a war?

BUSH: What we do know is that the Quds Force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that.

And we also know that the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did.

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know. And what matters is that they're there.

What's worse: that the government knew or that the government didn't know?

Hm. very weak reply to the question.

Now, let me step back on Iran itself. We have a comprehensive strategy to deal with Iraq. There's a variety of issues that we have with Iraq.

One, of course, is influence inside of Iraq.

Another is whether or not they end up with a nuclear weapon.

And I believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world peace, and have worked with other nations of like mind.

I'd suggest the President explain why it makes sense that Iran's legitimate concerns are ignored, that all the current nuclear nations totally ignore the NPT, and that Iran can have no nuclear power technology. But Israeli can have weapons and nuclear power plants.

And it turns out there's a lot of countries in the world that agree with that assessment. After all, we did get a Chapter 7 resolution out of the United Nations that included E.U.-3, as well as Russia and China.

As I recall, the General Assembly of the UN has repeatedly supported Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear technology.

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.

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.

Just damning

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops (WaPo)

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Wow.

Top Two

Iraqi Army Plans for Wider Role in Security of Baghdad (NY Times)
Saudis Give a Grim What If Should U.S. Opt to Leave Iraq (NY Times)
White House to Delay Shift on Iraq Until ’07 (NY Times)
Army, Marine Corps To Ask for More Troops (WaPo)

These are the main 4 pieces of news coming out of Iraq today.

I'd say the likely direction things are going to take is for the Iraqis to continually call for more autonomy and control, and the Americans to become hesitant about it. Eventually, it could come to a vote in Iraqi parliament that sets its own timeline for American troop withdrawl and handing over of duties. That would give us few, if any options, and we might seriously consider clandestinly supporting a coup d'état. At least, I wouldn't rule it out given the new fault line that's being drawn even between this Iraqi government and the Americans. Imagine what happens if they have an internal power shift.

BBC also has a story today on the increasing exodus from Iraq. It isn't good news that we could *easily* see massive destabilization at this point in not only Iraq, but Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, especially considering the prospects of Saudi, Turkish and Iranian involvement in Iraq. This is starting to redefine what would constitute "spiraling out of control."

===================

As for Taiwan, two great stories today: the first is about a dog that has been taught to sell betlenuts.
檳榔伯訓犬 母狗當西施 (自由)
Man teaches dog how to sell betel nuts (Liberty Times)

And the second story is that Liberty Times had such an accurate poll in Kaohsiung when everyone else was 10-20% off, the pan-blue media that had such bad polls is wanting to know their methodology and hinting that it's some kind of voter fraud.

真的這麼準？自由時報應公布民調方法 (中時)

More of the same

Taliban and Allies Tighten Grip in North of Pakistan (NY Times)

This is bad of course. We don't need Talibanistan.

U.S. Report Rejected By Iraqi President (WaPo)

What can we do if they don't like our plans?

Iraq army weapons wind up on black market (NY Times via Seattle Times)

Not the first time, but it goes to show how hilariously self-destructive our efforts can be. It also makes it clear why we won't give the Iraqis tanks of their own or airplanes.

扁舉家搬到高雄？　卓榮泰：看緣分 (東森)
扁搬家高雄　綠委擬提案遷都公投 (東森)
藍委：中央黨部 搬到南部 (中時)

haha 大家要搬到南部．但是問題在於說民進黨是要把它的北部支持度弄更高一點．遷都南部會被視為輕視北部的作為．

黃俊英：我仍有翻盤的機會(中時)
提選舉訴訟 黃營兩項指證 都是烏龍 (自由)

真是個輸不起的黨．

避免拖到最後翻臉 民進黨決提前合併總統立委初選 (中時)

當然要合併總統立委選舉，又省錢又有更少選舉．

禍不單行! 橘委再爆出走 (民視)
選舉結束 批馬聲浪起 (民視)

親民黨完了，但是我覺得馬短期之內不會出事．

台聯立委：除非解散 沒出走空間 (中時)
5席議員保不成 台聯黨主席蘇進強請辭 (民視)

我希望台聯能夠存在．

Lots of news

Votes in Doubt, Bolton Resigns as Ambassador (NY Times, Helene Cooper)

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

U.S. Military Shifts Troops in Iraq Into Advisory Roles (NY Times, Thom Shanker and Edward Wong)

The troops have been reassigned by commanders, who have not sought additional combat troops to replace them. While the troops have not been through the special program for trainers set up by the military, they are working in their areas of expertise, commanders said.

Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American commander in the Middle East, told Congress last month that he envisioned doubling the number of American trainers, but senior military officers now say they are drawing up plans that would at least triple the number of troops assigned to training.

I suppose that's relatively positive news. They're focusing on Baghdad first, so let's see how that goes. I don't think it could help too much, but it seems like the right direction to take things.

Blurring Political Lines in the Military Debate (NY Times News Analysis, Michael Gordon)

The stupid thing about this is that there was no rationale for the debate becoming bipolarized in the first place. With such a complicated and multifaceted issue, there was no reason for there to be "two sides." or for clear political lines. I think the Democrats demonstrated that pretty well, since they were unable to come to any particular conclusion and had 4-5 different takes you could hear regularly. So in otherwords, such blurring is long overdue. General Zinni, mentioned in the article, has written a report for the World Security Institute with his own ideas about how to improve Iraq.

Bush Urges Shiite Leader to Support Premier (NY Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg)

President Bush met Monday with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of the most powerful Shiite leaders in Iraq, and urged him to “reject the extremists that are trying to stop the advance of this young democracy.”

Well, obviously that can't be bad, but remember that said polititian is leader of SCIRI (The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) and has a major militia called the Badr Corps, and here's what their own website says:

SCIRI has secret cells all over Iraq which are involved in gathering information, media work and military activities. (now to the wiki article:) Its members have entered the new Iraqi army and police force en masse and gained virtual control of Iraq’s Interior Ministry. Currently based in and around Karbala, the Badr Organization effectively rules that city and other parts of southern Iraq.

And in a related article (Iraqi Shiite Leader Speaks Bluntly in Washington, WP, Robin Wright and Peter Baker) we see the following quotation:

"The strikes [the insurgents] are getting from the multinational forces are not hard enough to put an end to their acts, but leave them to stand up again to resume their criminal acts," Hakim said in a speech at the United States Institute of Peace. "This means that there is something wrong in the policies taken to deal with that danger threatening the lives of Iraqis."
The only way to eliminate the danger of a civil war, he added, was through "decisive strikes" against insurgents once loyal to former leader Saddam Hussein. "Otherwise we'll continue to witness massacres . . . against innocent Iraqis."

So yeah. Moving on:

Non-Asians Show a Growing Interest in Chinese Courses (NY Times, Natasha Degen)

This is definitely bad news fro me, if they learn well enough. Or perhaps good news, if I'm always on the more experienced end of this coming wave of people competing for my job.

NASA Plans Permanent Moon Base (NY Times, Warren E. Leary)

That sounds pretty cool.

U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment; Gear Piles Up at Depots, Awaiting Repair (WP, Ann Scott Tyson)

Well obviously that's no good.

Lawyers Demand Release of Chinese Muslims; Court Documents Allege Lengthy Detainment at Guantanamo Is Part of Deal With Beijing (WP, Josh White)

Possibly true, possibly some good just good lawyering.

House to Consider Abortion Anesthesia Bill; Conservatives Vow More Tests for Democrats on Social Issues When Congress Returns (WP, Jonathan Weisman)

In a parting gesture by social conservatives before Republicans relinquish control, House leaders plan to bring up a bill tomorrow that would declare that fetuses feel pain and require abortion providers to offer pregnant patients anesthesia for their unborn child.

See, that's just like them, to wait until they're almost out of power to try that crap. By the way, where do they get off making scientific declarations as the basis for a law? The whole topic is still hotly debated by doctors, but Congress wants to require the doctor to say there is "substantial evidence" the fetus would feel pain. Still, it's politically quite smart, as the article points out, because it will divide the Democratic caucus.

Offering Video, Israel Answers Critics on War (NY Times, Greg Myre)

Israel’s military, which has been accused of abuses in its war against Hezbollah this summer, has declassified photographs, video images and prisoner interrogations to buttress its accusation that Hezbollah systematically fired from civilian neighborhoods in southern Lebanon and took cover in those areas to shield itself from attack.

I'm a bit blown away by this, since it seems perfectly obvious that Hezbollah would do that (and it is a war crime, btw), and since it cannot possibly justify the destruction of whole neighborhoods, buildings with large numbers of civilians, land mine planting or cluster bomb dropping. The Israeli military also takes cover at civilian sites or uses human shields while operating in Gaza and the West Bank. Those war crimes are all well documented.

Afghanistan training, Iraq uncertainty

Report Faults Training of Afghan Police (NY Times, JAMES GLANZ and DAVID ROHDE)

Five years after the fall of the Taliban, a joint report by the Pentagon and the State Department has found that the American-trained police force in Afghanistan is largely incapable of carrying out routine law enforcement work, and that managers of the $1.1 billion training program cannot say how many officers are actually on duty or where thousands of trucks and other equipment issued to police units have gone.

In fact, most police units had less than 50 percent of their authorized equipment on hand as of June, says the report, which was issued two weeks ago but is only now circulating among members of relevant Congressional committees.

In its most significant finding, the report said that no effective field training program had been established in Afghanistan, at least in part because of a slow, ineffectual start and understaffing.

I think last time I checked, training security forces and getting them equipment would be pretty much the single most important parts of providing security for a large, mountainous country facing prospects of warlordism and resurgent Taleban. Yeah, yeah, after a double check that's still the case.

This just reinforces the case that we would have been a lot better off trying to do Afghanistan right before running nose first into Iraq. What the hell is wrong with the people in charge of planning? Was it really so hard to see that we needed to do a lot more planning, ground work, and then actually improvement in at least one of the two countries we invaded?

Here's the Iraq round up lately:
Rumsfeld Memo Proposed ‘Major Adjustment’ in Iraq (NY Times, MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID S. CLOUD)
Memo Text (NY Times)
Annan Calls Iraq Situation 'Dangerous' (AP in WP)
Baathists Demand U.S. Exit From Iraq (AP in Guardian)
Bush Is Weighing Options for New Strategy in Iraq, Aide Says; Hadley Says Previously Rejected Ideas Are on Table, Including Suggestions in Rumsfeld's Memo (WP, Charles Babington)

Pullout by '08?; Iraqi forces 'ready by mid-2007'

Iraq Panel to Urge Pullout Of Combat Troops by '08 (Washington Post, By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks)

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group plans to recommend withdrawing nearly all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train, advise and support the Iraqis, setting the first goal for a major drawdown of U.S. forces, sources familiar with the proposal said yesterday. [...]

The panel included a significant caveat for the 2008 goal for troop withdrawals by recommending that commanders should plan to pull out combat units by then unless "unexpected developments" make them decide that such a move would be unwise, the sources said. Still, they said, the plan would put the onus on U.S. commanders to try to meet the goal or explain why they failed to.

Although it was not clear how many U.S. troops would be left in Iraq by 2008, some people knowledgeable about the commission's deliberations have said that it might be possible to reduce the force of 140,000 to half by then. "There'll still be a presence there that will be significant just because of the nature of embedded forces," said one of the sources familiar with the commission's report. "It won't be what we have now, I'll tell you that."

Well, that's more specific than yesterday's NY Times scoop. But let's see... 1) I don't think they're really saying much at all, except to transfer all responsibilities ASAP, which as far as I know was the plan all along; 2) They suggest not withdrawing but escalating if the situation deteriorates, which I think it will, and I don't know if that's the right solution; and 3) A reduction of half sounds better than nothing, but I'm not sure if it would be enough.

And add to that. . .

Iraqi forces 'ready by mid-2007' (BBC)

According to a transcript released by ABC in advance of the broadcast, Mr Maliki outlined a plan to transfer security control to the Iraqi army.

"At the beginning of next year we will increase the training of our forces... when they reach an acceptable level, we can talk about transferring power from multinational forces to Iraqi forces.

"I can say that Iraqi forces will be ready, fully ready to receive this command and to command its own forces, and I can tell you that by next June our forces will be ready," he said.

Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the occupation. I wonder what it means for Iraq.

68% say Iraq in Civil War; 1/32 Americans in prison system

Majority of Americans Believe Iraq Is in 'Civil War', Poll Finds (WSJ)

My majority they mean 68%. Only 14% said it was not a Civil War and 18% aren't sure.

I hope this will settle this debate.

Also,

7 Million in U.S. Jails, on Probation or Parole (AP)

A record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday....

Racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent of black men - about one in 13 - are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men. And it's not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and over three times as likely as white women to be in prison.

I mean, wow. Do we really need to be putting all those people in jail? I think not.

Ethical Realism and Islamofacism

Authors Urge 'Ethical Realism' in Foreign Policy (NPR, by John Ydstie)

Explosive violence in Iraq and Afghanistan has generated intense discussion about U.S. foreign policy. In a new book, two scholars say America's strategy in emerging democracies and elsewhere is flawed because it's based on idealism and moral imperatives.

"That doesn't mean that we don't see the United States as a force for good in the world," says John Hulsman, co-author with Anatol Lieven of Ethical Realism. "That doesn't mean we don't see the United States as anything less than the first among equals for the foreseeable future. It does mean it's imperative you work with allies. And it's important to have humility at the basis of what you do because that leads to prudence and that leads to a foreign policy that's sustainable in the long run."

This seesm to me to be a relatively straightforward analysis that is nto very dogmatic and has a great point to it. They call for an Iraqi partition, which doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Moving on ...

Why 'Islamofascism' May Create New U.S. Enemies (NPR's Guy Raz)

I think the word was clearly a political ploy to get people to associate these guys with Nazis. And that's just silly.

On the State

The Wronged Man (Washington Post)
Unjustly Imprisoned and Mistreated, Khaled al-Masri Wants Answers the U.S. Government Doesn't Want to Give
Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, November 29, 2006; Page C01, RICHMOND, Nov. 28

Khaled al-Masri was supposed to have been disappeared by black-hooded CIA paramilitaries in the dead of night. One minute he was riding a bus in Macedonia, the next -- poof -- gone. Grabbed by Macedonian agents, handed off to junior CIA operatives in Skopje and then secretly flown to a prison in Afghanistan that didn't officially exist, to be interrogated with rough measures that weren't officially on the books. And then never to be heard from again -- one fewer terrorist in the post-9/11 world.

... Dressed in white shirt sleeves and a modest maroon vest, Masri is waiting to see if the judges will allow the CIA to disappear [his case].

... [The CIA argues], citing the state-secrets privilege, that to proceed with the case would damage national security and that this damage outweighs any legal rights Masri may have.

I would like to point out that this essentially amounts to the point that says: if the state is threatened, in a real verifiable way or in a perceived way, then the state should be able to do whatever it wants to take care of itself. It doesn't matter who you trample on.

This is the same argument that has been used and which is continually used to keep information classified (even though the real purpose is only to protect people who made unacceptable authorizations and orders), to intern Japanese in internment camps (Wiki-- In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity"), to do just about anything that's clearly unconstitutional. And there simply isn't and never was a good enough reason. The system rests on the proposition that rights guaranteed in the constitution are not granted by the government, but natural rights that nobody may be deprived of.

This is related to another article:

Iranian President Makes Direct Appeal to Americans (Washington Post)

In an unusual letter to the American people, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday called for the pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq and charged that Bush administration policy is based on "coercion, force and injustice."

The five-page letter, which was both conciliatory in references to "Noble Americans" and scathing in lambasting Jewish influence in the United States, said there is an urgent need for dialogue between Iranians and Americans because of the "tragic consequences" of U.S. intervention abroad.

Leaving aside that the Iranian president has no room to make such criticism, the thing is he's right-- about the policy based on coercion, force, and injustice. It is the basis of how all states operate. They coerce their people into various degrees of obedience, even for idiotic laws,
always with the threat of their legal monopoly on force in the background.

More trouble in Iraq

Following the bombing in the Shiite slum of Sadr City, a lot of bad things have happened.

Al-Sadr loyalists took over a TV station. A crowd stoned the Prime Minister's convoy. A US military base caught fire thanks to mortars. The US figures the Iraqi insurgency can fund itself. And the UN reveals that Israel set mines in Lebanon during the last conflict, on top of the maybe one million cluster bombs. And on an unrelated note, the theft of polonium 210 and other weapons grade radioactive material is not encouraging.

Jordanian King Abdullah has made the observation that the region faces the prospect of three very destabalizing civil wars. This is, i think, a rational analysis deserving of some very immediate attention since all three situations are actually pretty close to the brink. This is of course in addition to the very strong possibility of Turkish intervention in Iraq's Kurdish north, (which could inspire Iranian entry or the entry of several neighboring countries).

On the positive side: The Israeli/Palestinian truce is mostly holding for now, and Israeli PM Olmert has said he's willing to do prisoner exchange and come to a comprehensive peace. I believe he is sincere on the first point, but I'm not sure about the second. Also, the upcoming report by the Iraq Study Group is likely to suggest that the US talk to Syria and Iran about how to stabalize the situation, but I'm not convinced either of them can really do much. I believe TIME is right to suggest Iraq is spinning out of anybody's control, even militia leaders'.