Out of Iraq-- a war we never should have gotten into

I had the following comment on a website I visit sometimes that caters mainly to conservative Christians. In particular, a poster back in 2007 (during the 'surge') had posted that Iraq was still a 'war we could win.') But the comment is appropriate as well as a blog post so I'll put it up here too.

The President announced yesterday that all troops will be home by the end of the year.

Hard to see how this is a 'win.' At best, a Pyrrhic victory.

We are leaving Iraq with a government friendly to Iran, in fact one in which Moqtada al-Sadr holds more power than anyone except the Prime Minister (who is dependent on al-Sadr for his ability to govern at all.) Iran has essentially a free hand in Iraq, and its former Badr militia are now the core of the Iraqi army.

If there is any democracy at all, it is very disfunctional (look at what came out of the last election, when it took months to form a government and the winner became the loser because al-Sadr decided to make it so.) Half the population (the female half) actually have less rights in matters like divorce, inheritance and custody than they had even under Saddam, and the Constitution begins with the phrase "Sharia shall be a source of law" which the parliament has acted on it with enthusiasm, writing Islamist laws to replace the secular ones. Not surprisingly in such an environment tens of thousands of Christians, a community that dates to the very early church, have had to flee the country and nobody has done anything to prevent it.

In exchange for this rather dubious outcome, we fought for eight years (longer than we fought in World War II and Korea put together,) paid a trillion dollars of borrowed money (which is now part of the debt that everyone is wringing their hands about) and lost more than 4,000 Americans (with tens of thousands crippled or suffering from chronic conditions.)

How does that in any way, shape or form, qualify as a 'win?'

If anybody 'won' the Iraq war, it's Iran, and they did it without firing a shot.

I'm just glad we are out of there.

Spy games

American hikers Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal were sentenced to eight years in prison by Iran today after being convicted of spying. The pair claimed to be hiking in far northeastern Iraq more than two years ago along with a female companion, Sarah Shourd, who was later allowed out 'on bail' (effectively a ransom payment because nobody expects her to return for trial) after her health began to deteriorate and both the U.S. and Iran were concerned that if she died in prison it could lead to questions that neither would want to answer.

So the question remains, Are they spies?

I don't consider official pronouncements from either government to mean anything. The Iranians of course will say that (just as other governments hostile to the U.S. will) about any American who shows up in their territory. At the same time, if they were spies would you expect our government to acknowlege this? Clearly not. It was a major embarrassment to the U.S. earlier this year when they had to acknowlege that Raymond Davis, an American contractor who shot two Pakistani men who were allegedly trying to rob him was in fact an American agent. So because the Iranian government will automatically accuse and the American government will automatically deny, we can throw both of those out in the trash.

So what we are left with is purely speculative.

Reasons to think they could be spies:

1. The location and time where they were apprehended. I know dozens of serious hikers and I've never met any who were juked to go to Iraq. I'm sure there is some beautiful country there but in particular, trails that lead long the border with Iran seem a very curious place for American hikers to head to unless they have another reason for being there; Further, keep in mind that Iraq is still a war zone (and two years ago was that much more of one.) Granted, Kurdistan is the least restive part of Iraq but it's still true that Iraq is a dangerous place for Americans who just want to go for a visit. Most hikers try to avoid places where they may end up in political or local trouble, not seek them out.

2. The fact that high level administration officials have been involved in trying to get them out of Iran. If they were just ordinary citizens they'd probably send Bill Richardson or Bill Clinton or someone else with little power to actually promise anything to get them out.

3. They were convicted. Granted I'm not sure I'd want to be put on trial in Iran, but at the same time it does have a judicial system in place so contrary to popular belief in the U.S. it's not a society absolutely ruled by the will of a mullah or of Ahmadinejad. Judges have ruled against the state before there.

Reasons to think they may not be spies:

1. An eight year prison sentence. Convicted foreign spies are typically given life sentences, and in some countries they can face execution. Consider convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, who was arrested in 1985. He got a life sentence for being convicted of spying on the United States. The Israelis have tried unsuccessfully through for years that have spanned five Presidential administrations to get Pollard back. Keeping in mind that Israel is a nominal ally of the United States, the fact that Pollard is still in prison and will very likely die there would not bode well by comparison for an American spy convicted in Iran. So an eight year sentence may be largely for show, so they can growl and tell us how tough they are but not be stuck with these guys in prison for the next 50 or 60 years. Eight years does however guarantee that they won't be released until after the Obama administration (a clear poke at it since they were arrested very early on during the Obama administration.)

2. History. Remember that Iran held Americans hostage for 444 days back in 1979-1981 and in fact effectively held America captive for more than a year. Almost every news story was about the hostage crisis (in fact that's how "Nightline" got started) and for at least a decade thereafter the biggest bogeyman we had was Ayatollah Khomeini. There are some who even believe that Ahmadinejad personally was among the hostage takers (a charge he denies) but there may be a certain desire to see how much they can make America sit up and take notice.


3. Cultural issues. Most successful spies (depending on their mission) are citizens of the country which they are spying upon. Foreigners can attract suspicion and even more so in a society as xenophobic as Iran has become. And in fact, the U.S. would not need to send Americans to infiltrate Iran because given the long history between the two nations along with the fact that many Iranians are plainly disgusted with their regime, it's virtually certain that the U.S. has all the spies we need available in Iran right now. At the same time, there are things that sufficiently trained Americans operating along the border in theory COULD do, including making contact with local villagers to try and recruit more spies (in which case they would most likely in fact have gotten lost because remember we are talking about Kurdistan here, which is on both sides of the border; in this scenario they would be looking for Iranian Kurds who were temporarily in Iraq.) Another would be to set up electronic equipment along the border; I'm certainly no expert on that but I'd be amazed if they don't have electronic equipment that could spy very effectively at least a few miles into the country, and detect movement around and across the border-- for example weapons shipments allegdly being smuggled from Iran into and across Iraq to Syria and then to Hezbollah. However, even to do this work, I would think they'd have tried to recruit some local Kurds they could trust with it so as not to arouse suspicion.

Often spies do not, in fact, serve out their full sentences-- they are exchanged in spy swaps. Probably the most notorious spy swap in history occurred February 16, 1962 when Russia's former top spy in the U.S. Colonel Rudolf Abel was traded across a bridge for former U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers, who had been shot down in 1960. It's possible that Iran, rather than wanting the payment of ransom or political concessions, may be planning to trade these hikers for Iranians in prison (whether for spying or for other crimes) elsewhere.

What we can say is that there is probably more to be known here than the cover story.

Iraqi girls sold into sexual slavery, then subject to being stoned to death for having been raped

Imagine you are a young adolescent girl, 11, 12, 13 or 14 years old. Your father, whether out of desperate hunger of simply out of greed (does it really matter which?) sells you to a human sex trafficker to be turned into a sex slave.

Whether by eventually escaping, or by being caught by the police, or simply by using up your body and no longer commanding a profitable price and being dumped onto the street, you find yourself away from the trafficker and all alone in the middle of the big city.

And that's when the nightmare grows more intense: the authorities try you and throw you into prison for prostitution, or for other 'crimes' associated with your escape such as falsifying documents needed to escape the clutches of the traffickers.

That is the reality in present-day Iraq.

Fifteen-year-old Zeina's sad journey to prison began two years ago when she says was sold into sex slavery. "My father came and took me to go visit my grandfather in Syria," says Zeina, "and I went with him."

The family trip turned out to be a cover story, and Zeina found herself faced with the most horrific possible reality. She says she was then forcefully taken from Syria to the United Arab Emirates and sold into sexual slavery.

But Zeina refused to surrender to such a horrendous fate. And when the opportunity presented itself, she ran away. "I'm proud of myself," explains Zeina. "I turned myself into the police and decided not to stay in that situation."

Authorities in Dubai helped her return to Iraq, but more cruelty awaited her in Baghdad. The only way Zeina could make it home was to travel on a forged passport -- a very serious crime in Iraq.

After escaping her ordeal, Zeina found herself being prosecuted, rather than being comforted. As punishment, she's now serving two years in jail. A prison official confirmed her story.

Iraqi women's rights activists are outraged. "She refused to accept that her body had been sold. So this is how they reward her?" said Dalal Rubaie with the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq, "To put her in jail for two years? Where's the justice?"

I guess they figure she should have stayed put in the bordello in the U.A.E.

Things get worse if she does make it all the way home:

"In some ways, their fate is worse than death," explained Samer Muscati from Human Rights Watch. "Once they've been trafficked, there's a stigma even though they're the victims in this horrific situation. They've been exploited and they've been trafficked to another country with no real recourse."

According to Muscati, even if the girls do manage to escape the cruelty of their circumstances, it will be very difficult for them to escape the judgment of their families.

"When they do come back to Iraq, if the family does accept them it's very difficult because they've brought great shame to the family, they're subjected to honor crimes. And we've come across cases where young women have preferred to stay in prison or custody than to be released and to face tribal justice," Muscati said....

"I'm sure the girl's family won't take care of her," said Rubaie. "I'm sure that neighbors and relatives and society will judge her, they'll know that the girl had been a prisoner and the family will be ashamed of her.

"I'm sure they won't let her travel. I'm sure she won't be able to complete her education, if she had been studying. Or they will force her to marry a cousin so they can exert control over her. Any cousin. They'll end her life."

In case you don't know what 'honor killing' means, recall this post on a young Iraqi Kurdish girl who was stoned to death after spending a night with a young man of another faith.

Only what we are looking at now is rape victims who may have been sold into sexual slavery by their own family members, who if they return home will be stoned to death by those very same family members.

I guess this is the 'civilization' we have brought to Iraq.

You'd think that for millions of dollars in no-bid contracts they'd at least do a really good job

Well, apparently not.

Pasta or chicken?

As in, what meal would you like on your flight back to the United States?

That's what Eric Peters was told would be his choice if he questioned the shoddy electrical wiring he found in buildings wired by Houston-based KBR, Inc., on bases in Iraq. Peters, licensed as a master electrician in nine states, worked for KBR in Iraq from February to April of this year.

Peters, along with Jim Childs, a former project manager in Iraq for the Army Corps of Engineers, and Charles Smith, the former head of the Army Field Support Command, testified today at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing regarding tens of millions of dollars in government bonus money paid to KBR, a contractor whose faulty work is said to have led to the electrocutions of American soldiers

Of course as we know, KBR (Kellogg, Brown and Root) is a subsidiary of Halliburton, and we well know how Halliburton got all those no-bid contracts.

But to hear that they may have (despite all that money) cut corners on costs and that because of it some American servicemembers may have died needlessly is terrible, and I hope this gets fully investigated.

As I discussed in November, it appears we do have a Pyrrhic victory. But don't let the right try to claim it is anything more than that.

Lately, it seems that the righties want to talk about Iraq. They claim that since the surge worked, that somehow that vindicates all the crap they've thrown out there about it during these past several years. Fine, let's talk about Iraq.

I beg to differ with the standard right wing analysis. It is true that violence in Iraq is way down (especially U.S. troop casualties) and that we appear to have driven al-Qaeda out of Iraq. The Al-Maliki government has won several battles against homegrown militia groups and appears to have control over nearly all of the country.

And while the right tends to exaggerate the part of this that is attributable to the surge, there is little doubt that U.S. forces played a major role in routing al-Qaeda and in helping the Sunni militias take control of their regions of Iraq, and also in supporting the government's offensives against the Sadrist militia and other similar groups. If the right is guilty of exaggeration by failing to acknowledge the contribution of former Sunni militias that we bought by the payment of cash as being very important to the overall success as the surge, then often we on the left are guilty of failing to acknowledge the plain fact that the surge worked.

But where the righty argument falls flat is when they try to extrapolate from that back to justifying the original invasion of Iraq. Several months ago I anticipated this argument in a post I wrote entitled, The BEST case scenario in Iraq: A Pyrrhic victory.

Now, as an American I'm glad that starting where we were we have achieved this best case scenario.

However if we add up the costs and gains of the Iraq war we find the following:

Gains:

1. Saddam Hussein is gone. Of course there are still many bloody dictatorships in the world including the leaders of the country right now hosting the Olympics and we cannot get rid of them all but certainly we got rid of one. In any case, Saddam was gone by six weeks into the war, and had been captured by nine months into the war, so this still doesn't justify the nearly five years we've been fighting since the capture of Saddam.

2. Iraq is now a democracy. And the first thing they did with the democracy we gave them was to ratify a Constitution that states that the official religion is Islam and that Sharia is a source of the law, and elect a parliament full of fundamentalists that immediately passed restrictions on the legal rights of women so that in matters like divorce, inheritance and custody disputes they have even less rights than they had under Saddam. Democracy is like anything else-- it has to be earned to be treasured, not handed down. That is why Poles value their democracy while Iraqis have elected a majority of members of their parliament who are committed to establishing Sharia. Luckily, the political gridlock in Iraq has had the effect of preventing their parliament from getting much done.


3. There are now at best a handful of al-Qaeda members in Iraq. Which is exactly how many there were back in March 2003 when we invaded (Saddam knew who he could trust, which was nobody.) So we've beaten al-Qaeda all the way back to where it was in the first place.

4. We now know for sure that Iraq was no longer making WMD's or stockpiling them. If Bush had waited for Hans Blix to do his job then we'd have learned that at a lot less cost.

Costs:

1. The five year detour into Iraq have al-Qaeda, almost destroyed (along with their Taliban allies) in Afghanistan by January 2003, a second chance-- and they have come roaring back. They now have far more power in both Afghanistan and in Pakistan than they have had at any time since we put that war on the back burner and went after Iraq instead in March 2003. Righty likes to compare their present status to where they were on September 11. But that is not a valid comparison. Bush could have made the final push in early 2003 to end the earth of the Taliban and rid their Afghan center of power of al-Qaeda (including bin Laden and al-Zawahri) but he chose to relax the pressure and go after Iraq instead. So the nature of our conflict against the Taliban and AQ changed fundamentally in early 2003 from one of offense to one of essentially attrition and guarding certain selected strongpoints (mostly cities and military bases.) This is exactly the strategy the Soviet Union pursued in Afghanistan and it failed then, and it has slowly been failing us over the past five years. Further, the next American President will get to deal with a weak government in Pakistan which is even less willing to support operations and go after al-Qaeda and the Taliban than the Musharraf government was-- and we now have evidence that the Pakistani intelligence service itself is full of Taliban sympathizers, making Pakistan an unreliable ally at best.

2. We have lost the support of the world that we enjoyed virtually unanimously after 9/11. Most righties tend to blow this one off, suggesting that unilateral action is better anyway, but in fact we are overstretched right now militarily (one reason Iran is so belligerent-- they know darn well that as long as we have 150,000 or so troops tied down in Iraq we lack the ground force to seriously threaten to invade them.) Thanks to the poor planning of what to do after the invasion and the years we stayed fighting in Iraq it's a safe bet that next time we need a coalition, be it for political or military reasons, we'll find lots of cheerleaders but very few willing to go out onto the field with us. And incidents like Abu Graib and the use of torture have destroyed a well-earned reputation and given us a black eye that will take decades to fade, even if they are not ever repeated.

3. 4,000 American lives. Yes, this is less than a tenth of the casualty total in Vietnam and only 1% of what we lost in World War II. But then we have to ask: 4,000 lives for what? It's not an insignificant number (for example it is more Americans than died on 9/11) and is it really inconsequential to ask why we had to lose them when there were opponents of Saddam who were willing to fight and die to overthrow him themselves (such as those who rose up in 1991) if we had just supported them?

4. The myth of American military invincibility. There was a time when the armed forces of small countries like Grenada, Haiti, Serbia or even Iraq (during the first Gulf War) would either drop their arms and surrender at the news that the Americans were on the way, or if they fought would be systematically run over and destroyed pretty much at the same rate as if they had dropped their arms. American military casualties from all conflicts that we fought, in total between the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 and the start of the Iraq war in 2003 were less than a thousand (and the majority of those were killed in either the Beirut bombing or the First Gulf War.) Because of the perception of American invincibility, we rarely had to use the 'big stick' to get other countries to do what we wanted to. We just had to tap on it a time or two, and they'd get the message. But that is no longer true. Iraq has made it not true. We've had to fight hard for five years just to win a war in a country no bigger than California, so it is little wonder that countries like Iran and Venezuela have become emboldened. In the movie, "Predator," Arnold Schwarzeneggar's character is emboldened when he discovers that he has wounded the alien creature. He says, "If it bleeds, we can kill it." Thanks to Bush's reckless misuse of the finest military machine in the history of the world, other countries will now have that attitude. Even the small wars in the future, we will have to fight them, not be able to win anymore just by showing up.

5. A trillion dollars at least, once all the costs of Iraq are tallied up. Even if our economy was sound, a trillion dollars of new debt (because it was all borrowed from the future) would be a big hit. But in the sick economy we have now, the trillion dollars of new federal debt (and corresponding drop in the dollar) is more than a big hit. It's more like a crippling hit.

6. Geopolitical winners: 1. Iran. Saddam (their biggest enemy) is gone. They have a friendly government in power in Baghdad (and just in case that changes the Badr brigades they had trained for years in case they needed to push an uprising against Saddam, has seamlessly melted into and put on the uniform of the Iraqi army.) The United States (their most powerful enemy) is no longer able to do more than bomb them, because we played the 'invasion and occupation' card. 2. China. As we decline thanks to Iraq (see #4) we should remember that history always shows us that as one power declines, another invariably rises to challenge its place. Just as we rose, reached parity with, and eventually eclipsed the power of a declining Great Britain. Anyone have any doubt as to what the next superpower will be (or maybe already is?)

As I said several months ago, the best outcome that was possible in Iraq was a Pyrrhic victory. Of course that is better than an outright loss (we've got the trophy, right?) but it in no way vindicates or justifies the stupid and poorly thought out decision to go to war in the first place.

Bush administration reversing itself on all kinds of issues

If nothing else, you know we are winning the battle of ideas when even the Bush administration is reversing itself at a dizzying pace.

Not long ago the administration acknowleged the reality of global warming and announced that it would not block work towards a new global warming treaty (though both Senators Obama and McCain are firmly committed to one anyway so it really didn't matter what the Bush administration did.)

Then as I blogged about last week, they reversed what had been a policy set in stone against talking to Iran. This was done without preconditions (though in a meeting involving multiple nations) and represents a complete about face from a President who just a month ago made a speech in Israel in which he suggested that anyone who wanted to talk to Iran was guilty of pursuing a policy of "appeasement." It also shows that despite the rhetoric criticizing Senator Obama's proposal that we should actually negotiate with our enemies rather than just bark at them, the proposal is both sound and long overdue.

That however pales into insignificance compared to the next flip-flop. The entire debate between the White House and Congress over the past two years has been about troop withdrawals. The White House vetoed multiple Iraq funding bills (and had the vetoes upheld by their congressional allies) all over the singular issue of a withdrawal timetable. Even with the reduction of violence in Iraq since we began paying Sunni militiamen to fight al-Qaeda instead of us and simultaneously implemented "the surge"*, the President has refused to consider troop reductions on a set schedule. But he had little choice, after Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki for all intensive purposes endorsed Barack Obama's proposal (which reflects the collective view of the Democratic Congress) that the American troops can and should be withdrawn on a schedule. The timing of this proposal, on the eve of Senator Obama's trip to Iraq could not be more embarrassing for the Bush administration which was already stunned when the Iraqi government refused to accept their demands and ended negotiations on a 'status of forces' agreement which would have kept U.S. forces in Iraq permanently and beyond the reach of the Iraqi legal system. While Obama himself has allowed that the pace could be slightly adjusted to account for events on the ground, the new Iraqi position clearly represents a meeting of minds, and it is one in which Bush and John McCain are the odd men out. So no wonder the Bush administration has reversed their position on a timetable. It is now a foregone conclusion that we won't have a permanent occupation force in the up to sixty bases that were once envisioned, and all Bush is doing is putting the best face he can on what is clearly a defeat for his policy. And after five years of war, a trillion dollars and thousands of dead American soldiers it will be tough once we do leave for anyone to make the case that invading Iraq was anything other than a mistake.

So then today we see the President apparently reversing himself on Habeus Corpus. (Hat tip to lscottsman at Coldhearted Truth, linked to.) He now says he wants prisoners to be charged and given a trial or released if they are not charged.

Hmmmm.... Not that I'm complaining about the changes (it's nice to know that for at least the last half a year of the Bush administration we will have some sanity) but I'm trying to think--- what exactly is it that George W. Bush stands for, anyway?

*-- any discussion of the 'surge' does have to (in order for me to be academically honest) include the admission that yes, I once predicted it would fail. I'll save you the trouble and link to the post where I made that prediction right here. But yes, I'm actually happy to say that I was wrong in my prediction that the surge would not bring about a reduction in violence-- and one that has led to the present situation in which the Iraqi government refused to sign the agreement the Bush administration wanted and is instead telling us in effect to start packing.

Bush administration does something right-- reverses itself on Iran talks

Remember when Barack Obama said that he was willing to meet unconditionally with foreign leaders we don't get along with, including Iran? In fact, even his pledge to negotiate with them at any level was lambasted. He was called an appeaser and worse, and the right has been howling ever since then about it. Of course the policy of the Bush administration has been never to negotiate with governments it considers part of the 'axis of evil' or otherwise involved in 'sponsoring terrorism.' Even John McCain got into the act, refusing to meet with Palestinians during his last trip to the middle east (incidentally, Barack Obama has accepted an invitation to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as Israeli President Ohlmert when he goes to the middle east next month.)

Of course earlier this year we saw the Bush administration reverse themselves and negotiate directly with the North Koreans. But the biggest and most obvious foreign bogeyman-- Iran-- they have always publically refused to negotiate with.

So it was suprising today to see the Bush administration do a 180 degree reversal today and announce that Undersecretary of State William Burns will meet with Iranian diplomat Saeed Jalili this week during negotiations between Iran and diplomats from the European Union.

This is huge, and it is long overdue. It is not of course the kind of Presidential level talk that Obama has been criticized for saying he would pursue, and the scope of the discussion-- Iran's nuclear program-- is limited, but it nevertheless marks the first time in several years of saber rattling that the U.S. and Iran have had any kind of direct talks.

It is overdue because whether we like it or not, Iran represents a significant player in a part of the world that is both vital to the U.S. and where we have now gotten a significant portion of our military bogged down in (how much of our problems in Iraq the past five years have been due to Iran is debatable, but it is foolish to think that there is no connection.) Iran has much more influence over the Maliki government than we do (starting with the fact that much of the Iraqi military is composed of former members of the Iranian backed Badr brigade.) Iran also has a lot of influence over Hezbollah and other groups that whether we like it or not have significant power bases and ability to cause trouble around the middle east. And then there is that nuclear program and the obvious likelihood of a confrontation sooner or later between Iran and Israel. In other words, Iran is just too important to ignore. We may not like them, but then during the Cold War we didn't like the Soviet Union either. But like them or not, we had to deal with them.

The Bush administration is also clearly coming to the realization that in its waning days, with the costly mistake of Iraq only now settling down after five years of brutal war while the country we took our eye off of to go into Iraq, Afghanistan, is now heating up, any plans that they had to invade and occupy Iran (and we know that it was on their long term agenda) will have to be thrown away. Right now they have neither the military force needed nor the support of the American people for adding a long term military war and occupation of Iran to what is currently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their about face and willingness to negotiate is ample proof that they realize this.

It also vindicates Obama's position on negotiations with foreign adversaries, and leaves conservatives (especially the variety of neocon who can think of no other way to engage a country like Iran than militarily) blustering and red in the face. I'm not saying that the deployment of military force is never required (I've always supported the Afghan war and believe that we must leave Iraq as soon as possible so that we can do what we should have done half a decade ago and finish the job there) but clearly diplomacy has its place. Even the Bush administration, which early on used terms like 'with us or against us' and 'coalition of the willing' to excuse its unwillingness to rely on diplomacy, has realized that the world is not always such a simple and easily managed place.

I know, I know. Someone will undoubtedly point out that 1) this isn't a Presidential level meeting, and 2) that Ahmadinejad is still a nut who makes all kinds of outrageous rhetoric. My answers are 1) this kind of reversal by the Bush administation is nonetheless hugely significant and could well pave the way for a Presidential level meeting eventually-- by whoever is President; and 2) Ahmadinejad is a not particularly popular politician who makes outrageous statements largely for domestic consumption. But he will be gone next Iranian election (which I believe is next year) and replaced as the 'face of Iran' by another politician. The guys who call the real shots in Iran-- a council of mullahs led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-- are in effect being engaged at just as high a level by diplomatic talks as they would by Presidential talks.

Besides, how is Ahmadinejad's threat to destroy Israel any more outrageous than Bush's declaration of the 'axis of evil' followed by his actual attack on one member of that group-- Iraq? As a North Korean diplomat candidly said a year after that speech, "Your President called us a member of the axis of evil....of course we have a nuclear program" Rhetoric like that often spurs countries to take more, not less action (and the threat from America may be part of Iran's nuclear motivation). So maybe it is time for both sides to tone down the rhetoric and shake hands. This meeting is long, long overdue.

Obama's 'flip-flops' are greatly exaggerated.

A lot has been made about Barack Obama's supposed 'flip-flops.' First there was the campaign finance issue, when he reversed a pledge to accept public financing because he can raise a lot more on the internet. Then on each of the Supreme Court rulings last week he came down on what could be considered the conservative side (disagreeing with the ruling outlawing executing child rapists and agreeing with the ruling that the District of Columbia can't ban all handguns.) Then he said he will vote for the latest incarnation of the FISA bill despite it giving telecom companies immunity, and today while campaigning in North Dakota he made a statement that he would withdraw troops from Iraq on a pace subject to the safety and security of the troops and the need to maintain stability.

There is a lot to say here. First, most of the supposed 'flip-flops' are greatly exagerrated when put in the context of what he has said in the past. And where they aren't, so what? No one is suggesting that Barack Obama isn't a politician. Would you rather have John McCain, who if elected pledges to continue virtually all of the Bush administration's policies? What makes Barack Obama special is his ability to inspire millions of people. That is not contradictory to also being a politician. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were politicians to the core, but that was not contradictory to their also being inspirational leaders.

The most clear flip-flop is on the campaign finance issue, so let's start with it. A long time ago, during the primary season, Barack Obama did pledge to take public financing in the general if his Republican opponent did likewise. That is true. But he did reverse himself. However, let's be clear here-- there is little doubt that he can raise as much as three or four times as much on the internet as the $84 million he would otherwise get in general election financing. For that matter, do you honestly believe that if John McCain had a way to raise hundreds of millions of dollars he wouldn't take it? That is the reason why Mitt Romney is still on McCain's list as a veep candidate. So for Obama to limit himself to a third of the resources he would otherwise have would be stupid. He proved he isn't stupid. Next issue?

The FISA bill. It gives most of us on the left heartburn that Obama will vote for it. The bill puts into law immunity for telecom companies that broke the law (at the request of the Bush administration) when they violated your privacy and gave access to government snoops to your telephone calls without a warrant (you don't actually know for sure than nobody did listen to your calls, now do you?) It's true that he had pledged to vote against this earlier. He is saying that the new bill is an improvement, which is true, but the big issue, the immunity for the telecom companies is still in there. So while he can use the cover provided by the changes in the bill to say he didn't flip-flop, yeah he did. However this is hardly a reason to vote for John McCain. You know darn well he will vote for the FISA bill enthusiastically (assuming he bothers to show up at all-- his absentee rate is worse than Obama's in the U.S. Senate this year, negating an issue Republicans once thought they could use.)

Let's discuss the two Supreme Court rulings. I don't consider these to be flip-flops at all. Regarding the first, Obama has said in the past that he supports the death penalty for particularly heinous crimes. He never said whether he considered the rape of a child to qualify, until it became a valid question in the wake of last week's SCOTUS ruling. So if it's the first time he's commented on it, where is the flip-flop? I happen to disagree with him (I actually think the Supreme Court ruling is right-- if we have the death penalty at all then it should be used as an 'eye-for-an-eye' punishment, exclusively for murder) but there is no flip-flop in this case.

Then on the gun case, the Supreme Court ruled against the D.C. gun ban. The justices interpreted the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms, not just a collective right. Obama, who in the past has supported gun control laws, agreed with this interpretation. Again, there is no flip-flop. The court ruled the D.C. ban went too far in banning all guns of a certain type, but that isn't contradictory to jurisdictions regulating them. Senator Obama's past statements and his current support of the D.C. ruling are not contradictory in that regard.

For that matter, I agree with both Supreme Court rulings. This puts me in opposition to Senator Obama on the first, but not the second, and in opposition to some liberals on the second, but not the first. Proving what? Proving that in the Democratic party we can have disagreements on issues and still remain united.

OK, what about today's Iraq statement? It is no secret that Senator Obama has pledged to get us out of Iraq. So today he said,

"I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Again, where is the flip-flop? Look at this quote from a Democratic debate in 2007:

We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later, but our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month.

Which according to the article led to his taking some heat from some of the other candidates in the debate, particularly John Edwards and Bill Richardson.

That was last September. So what he said today is completely consistent with what he said then. Again, it isn't like he is talking about anything other than withdrawal. He is talking about using information he gathers (i.e. from his upcoming trip to Iraq) to develop a more informed plan for withdrawing. That in itself is a refreshing change from our current executive, who when he began talking about Iraq had his mind already made up what to do and ran an administration that cherry picked intelligence reports to only pick out any which supported their pre-drawn conclusion. I'd much rather have a President who is capable of adjusting the specifics of his policy when and if he receives new information.

Of course then John McCain isn't talking about withdrawing at all, he's talking about staying there for a hundred years. And while we are debating this the Bush administration is feverishly twisting arms in Iraq to try and get them to sign onto a 'treaty' that will involve our building and maintaining as many as sixty military bases in Iraq. What do we need sixty bases there for? Only if we plan on using Iraq as a base from which to exert military control throughout the middle east. Barack Obama opposed George Bush's stupid and criminal war in Iraq from the beginning and he is the only candidate talking about withdrawing from Iraq soon. That's a plain fact. What he said today is in no way contradictory to what he said then.

That said, the attempt by the right-wing media to paint him as a sellout is an attempt to drive a wedge between him and his supporters. And it's met with some success. Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) already announced that while he will endorse and vote for Obama, he has torn up the check he was writing him. And as Moulitsas goes so go many supporters. For Obama to realize his goal of raising $250 million online he needs that support.

To a degree Obama also is creating part of the problem by his attempt to 'seize the center.' That doesn't work. He is blessed with the ability to articulate policy positions. Look at what a couple of good orators who can speak directly to the people (mainly, Socialist Bernie Sanders but also Howard Dean) were able to accomplish in Vermont. It was such a Republican state for generations that it even voted against FDR in 1936. Jimmy Carter and Massachusetts neighbor Michael Dukakis couldn't crack it either. But by the late 1980's then-congressman Sanders had laid out such an articulate vision and in terms that anyone could understand that the whole state moved to the left. And unlike, for example, California, it was not an immigration-driven change. Most Vermonters were born and raised in Vermont. But the majority of them are now among the most liberal people in the country when a generation ago they were among the most conservative. Obama could make the same kind of change for America, and I believe it is a mistake for him not to do so.

In fact, exhibit A is Obama himself. He beat Hillary Clinton largely because she had spent six years in the Senate staking out the center, and a lot of activists (who especially were unhappy with her continuing support for the Iraq war long after it became clear to everyone else that it was an unnecessary mistake) by that time were ready to support anybody else who could beat her.

However, while I may have some concerns about Obama's small steps towards the center, let's be clear here-- they have been greatly exagerrated by those who attempt to paint him as a 'flip-flopper.' Those people have the ultimate goal of electing John McCain. And that would be a horrible mistake and a disaster for the country.

One year ago today.

One year ago today, Sergeant Christopher Gonzalez died when his unit was ambushed near Salmon Pak, Iraq. I attended his funeral a few days later, and blogged on it A hero is buried and what his community still needs.

John Edwards used to speak about 'two Americas.' One is the America of plenty, where people are employed,have health coverage, have food on the table and can take basic services like electricity and running water for granted (though they still may have trouble paying for them.) Sergeant Gonzalez came from the other America.

I'd been visiting Birdsprings chapter regularly until I got a church calling and a time for church this year that overlaps chapter meetings. But I will try and make it to this Sunday's meeting anyway. I understand they have a new flagpole. They dedicated it to Sgt. Gonzalez yesterday.

The size of the army

During the recent discussion on Iraq and Afghanistan, we are being confronted again with a hard, cold reality-- that we simply do not have enough ground troops to fully cover the manpower needs of both wars (and you can forget about the idea that our military, at least in terms of being able to invade and occupy yet another country, is an effective deterrent anymore to Iran or anyone else who wishes to pull our tail.

Republicans often love to point out that the military was downsized after the end of the Cold War during the early 1990's and blame Democrats. That is at best an oversimplification however and at worst an outright revision of history. Following the end of the Cold War, the idea of a 'peace dividend' in which less would be spent on the military in the absence of the Soviet threat was widely bandied about Washington by politicians on both the left and the right. In hindsight, it may have been naive to suppose that there would not be other threats, and to fail to anticipate the threat from Islamic extremism, but it is certainly not anything that our friends on the right warned us about back then any more than anyone on the left assumed this would be a problem moving forward. And further, the military of the 1990's was plenty big enough to handle minor crises and wars in places like Haiti and the Balkans.

Since 2003, when we put Afghanistan on the back burner and invaded Iraq though we've had a consistent manpower shortage. The army has struggled to meet recruiting goals, tours have been extended, we've sent national guard units to fight in frontline combat operations in much higher numbers than we ever had before, we've 'stop-lossed' thousands of soldiers who were due to leave the army and some people are back in Iraq on their third and fourth tours. And recently it has become even clearer, as the administration has all but admitted that we don't have enough troops for Afghanistan because of how many are tied up in Iraq.

There was also a mini-scandal of sorts that came out this week in that it turns out the number of new recruits who have 'waivers' allowing them to join the army despite juvenile convictions or other issues has jumped from about 5% of all new recruits in 2004-2005 to a rate so far this year running at around 13%. For the record, that doesn't bother me at all since I believe that many young people make mistakes when they are younger and I don't believe that getting busted for underage drinking, drug use or some other petty crime in high school should disqualify someone who wants to turn his or her life around from doing so in the military.

We can still bomb the heck out of anyone who gets in our way but in the kinds of guerilla wars we find ourselves fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, overwhelming air superiority is at best only a minor benefit. In fact, this points out one of the basic problems we've had. We still spend as much as twenty times as much on our military as any other country in the world. So funding isn't the issue. But we've bought far too much expensive military hardware that has little use in today's wars, while neglecting the most basic of resources-- the 'boots on the ground.' We still have thousands of nuclear warheads, including those in storage, but not enough feet with boots on them. Some of this has to do with the structure of Washington itself-- makers of expensive planes and other high-tech equipment have a whole lot more lobbying muscle in Washington than does anyone whose priority is simply to make sure that we have a military tuned to the demands of the present and foreseeable future.

It is also true that during the 2004 campaign John Kerry promised that if elected he would authorize and expansion of the army to include the creation of two new combat divisions. George Bush was asked about it once during the campaign and said he'd 'consider it.' Unfortunately Bush won that election, and whether for reasons of pride (because the idea originated with his opponent) or because he is too dumb to realize the urgent need for a larger ground army, he never followed up on the proposal. Of course it takes time to authorize, pay for, recruit, train and equip a larger army (not that much time though-- in WWII we trained, equipped, won the war and had them back home in less than four years.) But had the President borrowed a good idea from his opponent and asked for the two divisions back when he began his second term they would be well on the way towards being usable and giving us the capability to fight two ground-intensive wars that we now lack.

I don't believe that we have to spend any more money to get a larger military either. I believe that instead of spending over a billion dollars on a single bomber, we should maybe look at reprioritizing our military budget and prioritize towards having more ground troops available and fully trained and equipped.

President is doing the right thing by vetoing bill.

It is exceedingly rare that I agree with George W. Bush, and even more so that I agree with him or say he is right about anything pertaining to Iraq, but I will say that he is right in his statement that he will veto the defense spending bill, depsite provisions (which everyone agrees are sorely needed) increasing soldiers' pay and spending more on veterans funding.

At issue is a provision in the bill which would allow survivors or relatives of victims of atrocities committed by the regime of Saddam Hussein to sue the present Iraqi government. The provision would have frozen Iraqi assets as soon as a suit was filed. The Iraqi government had threatened to withdraw $25 billion in assets from American banks.

I have no problem with the concept that victims of Saddam's regime should be able to sue for damages and receive compensation for the horrible things that were done to them. And it is a longstanding international principle that the successor government (in this case the present Iraqi government) is responsible for settling matters attributable to the nation, including those charged to the previous government. Usually this applies to international debts and obligations (banknotes, for example) but it can apply to individual human rights cases (so for example the German government has set up a fund to help pay Holocaust victims.) It is also true that much of the Iraqi assets in question were accrued under Saddam's regime.

However, while I believe that it would be entirely appropriate for the present government of Iraq to set up a system to compensate Saddam's victims or their families and dedicate to that fund money which was accrued by Saddam's government, such settlements have to be set up in a structured and clearly defined manner. The bill the President is vetoing would simply have allowed lawsuits to proceed in a haphazard manner and result in the freezing of all the assets. Another closely related fact of the matter is that there are many thousands, maybe even millions of people who could file suit. However if this were simply pursued in U.S. courts, the likelihood is that those few who got in first would receive the lion's share of the cash (they, and their lawyers) in which case the assets would soon be used up and there would be nothing left for most of the victims.

I hope that the reason for the President's veto is because he understands this and recognizes that there should be a provision in place allowing victims of the former regime to collect damages, just that it has to be set up by the Iraqi government in a formal legal framework, as opposed to simply doing the bidding of the al-Maliki government and having no concern at all for the rights of those who did suffer.

The BEST CASE scenario in Iraq: A Pyrrhic victory.

In 281 B.C., king Pyrrhus of Epirus (an island off the coast of Greece) landed in Tarentum with an army of about 30,000 men and 20 elephants. He was trying to defeat Rome, which was then threatening to conquer the southeastern end of the Italian peninsula, which had been colonized by Greek settlers. In 280 B.C., he won the battle of Heroclea, but according to the historian Dionysus at the cost of about 13,000 men including many of his best soldiers. The next year, he invaded Apulia and defeated the Romans in the battle of Asculum. He lost another 3,500 soldiers, including many of his best officers, from his already depleted army. After winning the battle, Pyrrhus is reputed to have said, "One more such victory will undo me!" In fact, after an unsuccessful foray into Sicily, Pyrrhus' army was no longer strong enough to even administer what he had conquered in Italy and he was forced to return to Epirus. He had simply taken too many casualties to be worth the relatively small tactical victories they had produced.

A victory of this type, in which the costs outweigh the gains has ever since been known as a 'Pyrrhic victory.' It is not limited to military battles (though the Germans won one famously in the Second World War, when they sacrificed their most dangerous unit, their airborne unit, in return for capturing the island of Crete from the British and the Greeks.) Other examples of what might be considered a Pyrrhic victory could be a football team that wins a regular season game but does so at the cost of an injury to a star quarterback who will be sorely missed come playoff time, a businessman who irretrievably damages his reputation by lying in order to close a business deal or perhaps a bidder at an auction who outbids his or her rivals but soon finds that the article is not worth at all what has been paid for it.

Lately we've heard the right claiming that the recent downturn in violence in Iraq portends some great 'victory.'

First, I'm not a bit convinced that the downturn is more than a temporary lull. We've seen downturns in violence there several times in the past, such as after the early 2005 offensive that retook Fallujah, and in the end it has proven a fleeting moment of relief. Other than al-Qaeda (which has however proven resilient in the past) all the other major players in Iraq-- Iran, the Shiite and Sunni militias, are still present and armed, and the Iraqi government has done absolutely nothing during the present 'breather' to make a breakthrough that will prevent a future civil war.

But let's even entertain for a moment the possibility that the right is right (I know, I know, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.) Suppose that in fact, everything does work out, that the Shiites and Sunnis do figure out their problems and that Iraq becomes stable. Let's even imagine a situation in which the Iraqi government comes together exactly as the Bush administration hopes it will.

Then let's consider what in this best case scenario the U.S. will have gained and lost from the Iraq war:

Gains:

* Saddam Hussein is gone. He would be seventy years old right now if we hadn't invaded.

* We inflict a military defeat on Al-Qaeda and reduce their numbers to maybe just a handful hiding out in a country where there only were a handful hiding out in 2003 anyway.

* American companies make a lot of money rebuilding Iraq and from exploiting Iraqi oil.

* We know for sure that there are no WMD in Iraq, and we didn't even need Hans Blix to finish looking for them to find that out.

* After a five year struggle, we can say that we won.


Losses:

* About 4,000 American troops dead, tens of thousands injured.

* $1.6 - 2 trillion (depending on the estimate) in combined actual outlays for the war and the effect of the cost of the war on our economy.

* Iran has become the most influential power in the region, and they get rid of their archenemy Saddam without firing a shot; an Iraqi government with close ties to Tehran, something the Iranians fought for a decade to achieve in the 1980's without success.

* Iran has become increasingly belligerent and been able to make substantial progress towards developing real WMD (nukes) while our army is tied down in Iraq and unable to seriously threaten Iran (as it will be for the foreseeable future even if this is a 'win'.)

* The aura of American military invincibility has been cast to the wind, guaranteeing more future challenges from who knows where (but we will be tested, of that you can be sure).

* Al-Qaeda given time and a chance to regroup (together with the Taliban) in the country where they were present before, because we shifted our focus to Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan.

* The unquestioned international support for America which existed after 9/11 long since gone.

* With torture and other rights abuses practiced, America no longer has the moral authority to lead the world.

* Except for the 2001 tax cuts and the medicare drug giveaway, virtually none of the Bush administration and GOP domestic agenda realized as the administration spent virtually its entire political capital on stampeding into Iraq; for that matter even the tax cuts are still due to expire on schedule after the Republican Congress was unable to make them permanent. Now, granted I am a Democrat and don't mind seeing Republicans fail, but with it having been three quarters of a century since the previous time when the GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House (the 1952-1954 Senate was 50-50 with the GOP nominally in control by virtue of the Vice Presidency) they clearly sacrificed a great deal for getting us fixated on Iraq. Are you a Republican who voted for the GOP because you wanted to see Republicans reduce the size of government, for example? Then Wait another LIFETIME, Buddy!

In other words, even if conservatives were for a change 100% right, and the reduction in violence we see right now in Iraq is a real 'victory' and not just another temporary lull in a continuing cycle, the best they can claim is a Pyrrhic victory.

Sounds like they don't want a trial that might spill the beans.

The State Department has promised immunity for Blackwater employees involved in last month's shooting in Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead.

This brings up two troubling questions at the outset:

1. Other than diplomatic immunity (and it has never been suggested that Blackwater Employees are diplomats) the State Department has no authority to grant immunity against prosecution in a U.S. court. That is the prerogative of the Justice Department. This could be the first real test of the new Attorney General, to see whether Mukasey points this fact out to the State Department and then how he proceeds from there;

2. The FBI is not yet done investigating, so the quickness of the State Department to grant immunity not only continues and expands on the unilateralism that has been a hallmark of George W. Bush's administration, but also suggests that they are hiding something and fear that a trial might bring it out into the open. What are they hiding?

Does Hillary understand that this is a nation sick of war?

Yesterday at a campaign event in North Hampton, Iowa, Hillary Clinton had a testy exchange with an anti-war member of the crowd.

Referring to her recent vote in the Senate supporting the Bush administration in its attempts to get us into a military confrontation with Iran, as well as her 2002 vote in favor of going to war in Iraq and her continued refusal to admit being wrong about that vote, the attendee, Randall Rolph asked,

"Why should I support your candidacy, if it appears that you haven't learned from your past mistakes?"

Sen. Clinton's response was particularly concerning to me as a Democratic voter:

After defending the vote, Clinton finished by saying about the question, "somebody obviously sent it to you."

Rolph responded, "I take exception. This is my own research. Nobody sent it to me. I am offended that you would suggest that."

"Let me finish," Clinton answered, "I apologize. I just have been asked the very same question in three other places."

OK, I'm glad she realized right away that she had stepped over the line in making the accusation and apologized. But on a larger level, she just doesn't seem to get it.

There is a reason why she has been asked the question frequently. It's the same reason why Democrats, especially anti-war Democrats did very well in elections last year. The reason is that most people are sick and tired of the Iraq war, most people are sick and tired of the apparently reflexive reaction by the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress (which has included, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton) to take a hardline hawkish view towards everyone who disagrees with us, and most people are sick of the administration's unwillingness to consider alternative courses of action.

Further, in poll after poll after poll we have seen that most Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq, on a timetable if not immediately. Clinton may well be able to win the Democratic nomination, largely because those of us who want the U.S. out of Iraq are split between Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich, but to be honest, while I support Richardson myself (among other reasons, because he is the highest candidate in the polls who has promised to get every American all the way out of Iraq and is also the most qualified to be able to deliver on that promise), if it were a two person battle between Clinton and any of the above, I would support any of the above for the nomination. So she is lucky that the majority of the Democratic party is split so many different ways, but still is likely the last choice of most Democrats, and specifically so for one and one reason only-- Iraq.

But Iraq will be the central issue in next year's election, just as it was in last year's. And it is not only most Democrats who want us out of Iraq, but most voters. And that is where Hillary is definitely on the wrong side of things.

She may be gambling that in a race against a Republican, who certainly will sound like, if not embrace, George W. Bush on Iraq, saying we have to stay there until the cows come home, she can afford to take a hawkish stance and win the votes of liberals by talking about health care, education, etc.

But if so then it is not a wise gamble. I've blogged before about the dangers of the frontloaded primary system, in which we will have the nominees for November chosen by just forty-eight hours after the Super Bowl.

One huge problem with this is that it presents an enormous window of opportunity for a well-funded independent or third party candidate to jump in during the late spring or early or even mid summer, especially if the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees have just spent all spring attacking each other until most people don't want either of them. And in fact, this is not a theoretical scenario-- current NY mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who would not need to raise a dime, has dropped hints about running, possibly with Chuck Hagel, a retiring Republican Senator from Nebraska who is a Vietnam veteran and has come out strongly in favor of withdrawing from Iraq.

Such a scenario could result in a hawkish Hillary Clinton being in a very difficult position. Strong war hawks would likely continue to support the Republican nominee-- she might be lucky to pull off a handful but not enough to make much difference. On the other hand, Bloomberg or some other third party candidate would have the advantage of being able to triangulate an Iraq stance that favored getting out of Iraq-- hence agreeing with 2/3 of the electorate on the number one issue of the campaign while Hillary and the Republican were left to fight over the other one third.

As a partisan Democrat I will support the nominee no matter who it is, but I have to admit that I have a lot of reservations about whether Hillary Clinton either understands just how angry and frustrated most Americans are about Iraq, or frankly gives a hoot. Her response to Mr. Rolph's very appropriate question, ranging from flippant to arrogant, makes me thinks that she does not.

America's Hessians may also be involved in arms smuggling.

Hot on the heels of the alleged killings of over 20 Iraqi civilians by mercenaries employed by Blackwater USA, comes a new allegation, that Blackwater Hessians are involved in illicit arms sales. Specifically, the probe focuses on evidence that some mercenaries employed by Blackwater bought assault rifles and other weapons while they were home in America and sold them to willing buyers in Iraq-- which I'm sure it isn't hard to find some. The company itself has denied involvement and called claims that the company itself was involved in illegal arms sales 'baseless' but has pointedly not said the same about its employees, in light of a statement by State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard this week which seemed to confirm an ongoing investigation into arms smuggling by Blackwater employees.

Of course after a brief suspension following the shooting incident Blackwater was ordered back to work over the objections of the Iraqi government and is back to doing the same tasks it has done in the past-- tasks involving security and escorting of convoys, including military supply convoys and individuals that normally in past wars have been assigned to the military. And the truth is that our already overstrained military, overextended even farther by the 'surge' to a troop level that they cannot maintain permanently (hence the call for a troop reduction back to pre-surge levels by the Bush administration despite the failure of the Iraqi government to make any progress towards a political solution-- the stated objective of the 'surge.') Hence the reliance on mercenaries (most, but not all of the Blackwater employees are Americans, but there are also many foreign mercenaries, some former members of armies known to have committed large scale atrocities in the past.) Bill Berkowitz' expose in March of 2005 (a month before the infamous Fallujah incident involving the death of four Blackwater employees) focused on their recruiting efforts among the armies of the former apartheid regime in South Africa and the Pinochet regime in Chile-- both well schooled in human rights violations.

Well, is this latest news about gun-running surprising? When you hire mercenaries then you have to expect them to act like--- well, mercenaries.

When I first wrote abou Blackwater, back a couple of years ago, I wrote,

What has changed is that mercenaries today are no longer 'independent contractors' as they traditionally have been. Because they are now managed and formed into commando units by companies like Blackwater (as well as DynCorp and a few others), it is only necessary to contract with the company. Because rules of engagement for paramilitary forces are not well defined, our government has found them useful in missions that the traditional army might not be able to undertake for political reasons, for example, operations that carry a high risk of civilian casualties, military operations within the borders of the United States or against U.S. citizens, or operations in which it is foreseen that some of the traditional rules of engagement might not apply. If the mercenaries break some of the rules, there is either the benefit of deniability, or the ability to fire the 'security contractors' without admitting guilt.

And that may be the case here. Blackwater can in fact deny direct involvement in either the shooting incident or the arms smuggling, and fire the employees found to be directly responsible while setting the tone and officially following the same loose 'hands-off' policy that the Defense Department claimed to be following when the Abu Graib scandal broke.

President outfoxes us and gets us to 'stay the course.'

Last December I wrote a post called, Don't buy into George Bush's Iraq trap.

In it, I discussed what were then new plans for a so-called 'troop surge.' While I was wrong in predicting that the proposed troop surge would never even occur, it seems that I was right in my basic premise-- that it was all about framing the argument in a way that would allow the administration to 'stay the course.'

I wrote back then,

is shifting the frame of the debate. Instead of it being between 'stay the course' (his position) and 'withdraw' (the progressive position) which he would certainly lose, what he plans to do is try and get people debating the 'surge' (i.e. ratcheting up the war.) Those opposed are then debating against increasing troops, and as such are by default arguing only to not increase them (i.e. maintaining current levels-- 'staying the course.') He knows he doesn't have the votes in the new Congress to win, but what he is trying to do is play the Democrats for chumps, and get people to forget that we were talking about how to get out. Then he can lose the vote in Congress but still end up 'staying the course' (what he wants anyway). Only then that will become the the Democratic position (because it was in opposition to his 'new' position), and then if Iraq continues to deteriorate (as it will) and we continue to lose American troops (which we will) then it becomes the fault of Democrats.

In other words, he is trying to unload his lemon onto us.

If we fall for that, then we really are stupid. But unfortunately, based on what I've heard, there are some on the left who seem ready to take up this no-win debate.

Fast forward to today. The 'surge' is well underway, and this week the President announced that there will be a reduction of 30,000 troops by the middle of next year-- in other words back to the level they were at just before the 'surge'! Yup, you got it-- he is well on his way to maneuvering us into staying the course!!

Militarily, it could be argued that the surge has achieved some objectives, but then the same could be said of the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq as well. Politically the reconciliation which the surge was supposed to ensure still has not happened. If sectarian killings are down it is largely because so many predominantly Sunni or predominantly Shi'ite areas have been 'purified' (as Iraqis call it) and segregation created by driving out those minorities who did live there. On top of that, August showed an uptick in the number of civilian deaths. While this figure may to a degree reflect a series of bombings that killed 500 in one day in northern Iraq, it is clear that the surge has not stopped violence in Iraq, but at best has given it a brief respite. And even the most heralded 'success' in Iraq, the Sunni leaders in Anbar banding together to drive out al-Qaeda, was already happening before the 'surge' began and really has little to do with it.

But let's be clear what this was. It was a maneuver to buy a year for the President's failed policy so he could run out the clock on his mess, and it is no more or less than that.

Weapons we paid for lost in Iraq, some used to kill Americans.

We know (and it has been documented ad nauseum) how there has been little or no accountability for money that has been sent to Iraq-- you know, the guys who were driving around Baghdad in pickup trucks early on during the occuption of Iraq handing out wads of hundred dollar bills, trying to buy us love.

We know that there has been little or no accountability for the no-bid contracts handed out to Halliburton and other contractors. That too has been documented ad nauseum.

But you'd think at least there would be some accountability for weapons sent to Iraq. After all, if we are arming people, we at least want to know who we are in fact arming and where the arms are wouldn't you?

Well, apparently not.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Pentagon cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, or about half the weapons earmarked for soldiers and police, according to a government report.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, said in a July 31 report to lawmakers that the Defense Department also cannot account for 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets reported to be issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22, 2005....

One senior Pentagon official told The Washington Post some weapons probably were being used against U.S. troops. He said an Iraqi brigade created in Falluja disintegrated in 2004 and began fighting American soldiers.

So even arms aren't worth auditing when we send them into a country full of enemies. Un-friggin-believable. The ineptitude and incompetence of this administration is simply mind-boggling.

Richardson has the best Iraq plan

Many of the other Democratic candidates have recently explained that they support leaving some troops in Iraq in order to prevent genocide, fight terror, keep the Kurds safe, etc.

They don't get it.

First, none of these require U.S. troops. There are certainly Shiites who kill Sunnis and Sunnis who kill Shiites in Iraq, but that is not genocide. It is a civil war. And genocide won't happen for one very basic reason-- Iraq is crawling with arms. Large scale massacre of all the followers of a group in a region (this is what genocide is) becomes impractical if the people targetted are even lightly armed-- you man ovewhelm them with force, but losing a soldier at every second or third house that they clear out would not be an acceptable rate of loss.

Second, the terrorists are there to fight us. And has recently been shown by some Sunnis turning on their former al-Qaeda allies, they don't want domination by foreign invaders. Neither us nor al-Qaeda.

Third, the Kurds were plenty autonomous and self-protecing for years without out putting troops on the ground. The only real threat they might face is Turkey's army to the north, but let's be honest here-- if the Iraqi Kurds ever want independence they have to prove that they are willing to live within the rules and mores of the world they are in. And for starters that would mean cracking down on people wanting to attack over the border into Turkey. In fact, I would join many in supporting the idea that Turkish Kurds should decide their future for themselves, but they have to renounce violence as a means to get there.

The bottom line though is that none of this requires any American troops. And if we leave troops there then the folks in Iraq who want to kill Americans will continue their work unabated. And sooner or later the troops we leave will be involved in combat and take casualties.

Far better to do something different. Let's get down a book that has likely never been dusted off in the past six years. The book of diplomacy.

Ask the question: If Pat Tillman was murdered, who didn't want him to come back alive?

Once again (in what we are learning is a story which seems to get worse every time we get closer to the truth,) we've learned some disturbing new details regarding the death of Pat Tillman.

Tillman, you may recall, was the NFL star who left a career worth millions of dollars per year to join the elite U.S. Army Rangers (along with his brother Kevin) after 9/11 so he could fight in Afghanistan against the people who had actually attacked us. After a stint in Iraq, where he told comrades that he opposed the Iraq war and believed that it served no purpose in the war against bin Laden and al-Qaeda, he was redeployed to Afghanistan where he died on April 22, 2004. Within hours, a heroic story about his death was put out, and he was even awarded a silver star. A nice touch, it turned out to what was even then known to be a big lie.

But in today's story, we learn much more. Much more disturbing.

SAN FRANCISCO - Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by the Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors, whose names were blacked out, said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away....

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if it would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters, and they had said no," the doctor testified.

We also learned this:

• No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire nor was any government equipment struck.

After their first set of lies was exposed, the Pentagon and the White House are still sticking stubbornly to their second story, that it was a friendly fire 'accident,' even now offering up the heads of several generals on a platter.

But the evidence is still there, that this was no accident. And the motivation is clear: Pat Tillman was well known to personally oppose the Iraq war, which was not the war he signed up to fight. And after his commitment was over, he'd have been a devastatingly effective opponent of that war. Even Ann Coulter would have had a tough time attacking Tillman after he got home from both Afghanistan and Iraq, and began speaking out against the Iraq war. April 2004 was the month that Iraq boiled over and it was clear that the U.S. would be there longer than Tillman's commitment. So suddenly he died, conveniently in the war he had volunteered for, and within hours the heroism story was out, carefully scripted and made to order, complete with silver star.

Mary Tillman is right, this doesn't pass the sniff test. There is more here that needs to be investigated. Let's hope that Congress demands to know the names of the doctors involved and determines why their suspicions that it was murder weren't acted on. It is true that the army did eventually conduct an inquiry in which they asked if any of the men in his unit disliked Tillman. But maybe that isn't the inquiry that needs to be asked in regard to what appears to be a cold blooded case of murder. Maybe the question needs to be asked, who was afraid of Pat Tillman, and how far would they go in order to prevent him from saying what he was going to say after he left the army?

The lights are off, the doors are locked and everyone else has left the building-- but President Bush still is talking about a 'win' in Iraq.

Today President Bush said once again that we have to 'win' in Iraq.

Leaving aside the fact that we've grown tired of this stale old line in support of keeping us moving in place in a war that has become intractable and likely unwinnable, I'd like to know exactly how he defines, 'win.' The ever-murky and changing mission has made it virtually impossible to even know what exactly a 'win' was.

Certainly if a 'win' was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, then since that is done, we should bring all our troops home, in say, four years ago. If it was to get rid of any WMD's, then we should also bring our troops back years ago, certainly after the administration made the announcement on January 12, 2005 that they were calling off the search for WMD's after two years of exhaustive searching had turned up nothing other than a handful of left over and decomposing mustard gas cannisters from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's that had apparently been stuck on a back shelf somewhere and forgotten about. If it was about letting the Iraqis elect a government, then that has also been done, though they elected a fundamentalist Shi'ite government that is essentially a puppet of the Shi'ite militias who support them. If a 'win' was to keep Iraq peaceful and prevent Islamist terrorists from disrupting the country, then-- wait a second, Saddam was doing that. If a 'win' means some sort of a smashing military victory, then somebody better read about what exactly a guerilla war is.

As a matter of fact, George W. Bush himself declared that all major combat operations were over on May 1, 2003 under that 'Mission Accomplished' banner. The cost then was 139 American lives and about $45 billion, in the course of six weeks. According to what was said then, that was a 'win.'

Since then we've lost 25 times as many American lives, spent fifteen times as much money, and been there for about 35 times as long.

So I figure by now, we must have 'won' Iraq at least a couple of dozen times. So let's bring our troops home now, I don't know if we can stand much more of this kind of 'winning.'