Sic Semper Tyrannis

Head of Government, not Head of State.

"The Presidency Council appoints the Prime Minister of Iraq and cabinet (Council of Ministers of Iraq), all who must be approved by the Assembly. The Prime Minister and his cabinet exercise most of the day-to-day runnings of government, including control over the armed forces. The Assembly has a right to remove the Prime Minister with a vote of no confidence"  Wiki

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder of anyone has pointed this out to Bush?  Oh.  Of course they have.  They are planning to "manage" the political process with selective favorments (neologism).  In the news today there is agitation in Iraq for a new politcal coalition of Sadrists, Sunnis and some Christians.  The purpose of this would obviously be a "vote of no confidence."  What will Bush and company do then?

Such a coalition might last long enought to "see us off," but would certainly fracture soon after.

Pat Lang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Administration_for_the_State_of_Iraq_for_the_Transitional_Period#Political_structure

"the politics of the last atrocity"

"It is getting worse. The Iraqi army and police are not loyal to the state. If the US army decides to confront the Shia militias it could well find Shia military units from the Iraqi army cutting the main American supply route between Kuwait and Baghdad. One convoy was stopped at a supposedly fake police checkpoint near the Kuwait border earlier this month and four American security men and an Austrian taken away.

The US and British position in Iraq is far more of a house built on sand than is realized in Washington or London despite the disasters of the last three-and-a-half years. President Bush and Tony Blair show a unique inability to learn from their mistakes, largely because they do not want to admit having committed any errors in the first place.

Civil war is raging across central Iraq, home to a third of the country's 27 million people. As Shia and Sunni flee each other's neighbourhoods Iraq is turning into a country of refugees. The UN High Commission for Refugees says that 1.6 million are displaced within the country and a further 1.8 million have fled abroad. In Baghdad neighbouring Sunni and Shia districts have started to fire mortars at each other. On the day Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death I phoned a friend in a Sunni area of the capital to ask what he thought of the verdict. He answered impatiently that "I was woken up this morning by the explosion of a mortar bomb on the roof of my next door neighbour's house. I am more worried about staying alive myself than what happens to Saddam."  Patrick Cockburn

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night."

Matthew Arnold - Dover Beach 1867

--------------------------------------------------------------------

That pretty well sums it up.  We are going to go all the way down, down down....  All the way down to whatever circle is reserved for the ignorant, proud and presumptuous.

And the Iraqis, whomever they are? They are going to go with us although perhaps to a different circle.  Their's may be one reserved for the bloody minded who can't see their neighbors as other than mortar targets.

June, 2007?  Maliki says June, 2007?  There may be a special place for him.

PL

http://english.alarabonline.org/display.asp?fname=2006%5C11%5C11-29%5Czopinionz%5C961.htm&dismode=x&ts=29/11/2006%2003:53:00%20%C3%A3

A purloined letter?

"In that case, the memo suggests, it may ultimately be necessary for Mr. Maliki to recast his parliamentary bloc, a step the United States could support by pressing moderates to align themselves with the Iraqi leader and providing them with monetary support."  NY Times

---------------------------------------------------------------

"“Pushing Maliki to take these steps without augmenting his capabilities could force him to failure — if the Parliament removes him from office with a majority vote or if action against the Mahdi militia (JAM) causes elements of the Iraqi Security Forces to fracture and leads to major Shia disturbances in southern Iraq,” the memo says. '  NY Times

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Who leaked da memo?  What was it really a "leak" or was it a "controlled press release?" 

The first quotation above indicates a continuing belief in the government's ability to manipulate events and politics in Iraq.   I suppose that it is inevitable that the "Hadley academical types" should imagine themselves to be operating at a level of skill and effectiveness comparable to the Americans who steered Western Europe through its period of political vulnerability to communism after World War Two or the Kermit Roosevelt types who "did in" Mossadegh in Iran.  But, in fact, that was then, and this is now.  the world has changed.  The "wogs" are not so biddable as they were.  Now the possibility has been announced to the world.  The difficulty of doing something like this just increased dramatically.

"leads to major Shia disturbances in southern Iraq,” the memo says. '" Need I say more?

Pat Lang

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/world/middleeast/29military.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

Toward a Sunni/Neocon Entente

I am told that within the constraints of the position which the president took today at Riga, his inner circle is going about the business of constructing a "consensus" (ijma'?) of Sunni Middle Eastern forces to oppose the rise of Iran as standard bearer of Shia (surely 12er) Islam in its once in a millennium effort to be the "master" in the Islamic "House."

Turkey, Shia Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the rest of the GCC, Israel and, of course, the US are being summoned to an apocalyptic struggle against the Iranian Mullahcracy (never my favorites).  Syria is being pressured to join the "combination" against Iran, but, as usual, without "carrots."

What does this mean?  It means that very defective understandings of the Middle East still rule American foreign policy.

Pat Lang

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/28/iraq.main/

Bush Clarifies His Position - Riga

"National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters traveling to Estonia with President Bush: "Obviously, everyone would agree things are not proceeding well enough or fast enough." Washington must find ways to "adapt," he added.

Events over the past week, including the deadliest attacks since the war began in March 2003, have created a new sense of diplomatic urgency about finding a viable strategy to contain Iraq's violence and limit spillover damage across the region. The White House again resisted assertions that Iraq is now in a civil war, but that stance is increasingly hard to defend, according to analysts, diplomats and even some U.S. officials in private."  Ricks and Wright

----------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who listened to the president's speech in Riga today knows that this is all nonsense.  He has no intention to change his policy in Iraq. His policy has been and continues to be the creation of an essentially Western country in Iraq governed on a unitary basis by an administration elected on the basis of one person, one vote.  He expects that "victory" there and in his other areas of activity, Lebanon, Syria, etc. will result in a wave of revolutionary change across the Islamic World which will "drain the swamp" in which the "extremists" grow.  He was taught this vision by neocon "dervishes" who are still pursuing the memory of Europe transformed by the French Revolution. The French Revolution renewed in the Muslim World remains the goal.  We are already seeing the result of the "freedom agenda" in Iraq.  There, Liberty has become license to kill and give over to rapine all those who "threaten" the ability of one's own group to maximize its position.

Bush is "having you on," folks, "having you on..."

Pat Lang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701398.html?referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email

War Drums at Washpo

"The killers of Mr. Gemayel have not been identified and may never be. But the attack fits snugly into a pattern of provocations across the region by Iran and Syria, which appear to believe that American reversals in Iraq have given them the opportunity to create what Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad calls "a new Middle East" -- one in which their influence and radical ideology will predominate. They would make their client Hezbollah the power broker in Lebanon, restoring Syrian suzerainty. They would use Hamas to block any progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian settlement and perpetuate a continuing, if low-grade, war on Israel. And they would continue to bleed the United States by supplying insurgents in Iraq with arms and sanctuary. Iran meanwhile presses ahead with its barely disguised nuclear weapons program: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently promised to increase the number of centrifuges enriching uranium from the current 328 to 60,000."  Washington Post

--------------------------------------------------------------

This editorial virtually endorses any number of neocon propaganda lines:

It assumes that Iran and Syria are unmitigated forces for evil in the world who can only be dealt with through force and the threat of force or sanctions.

It assumes that Hamas is simply a tool of Iran and Syria without any other status at all.

It assumes that the Hariri/Siniora/US government assertion that the Syrian government killed Pierre Gemayel must be true.

It assumes that a greater share of political power in Lebanon for Hizbullah and Amal would be a bad thing.  The evident truth that the Shia represented by these groups are grossly under-represented seems to mean nothing to the Post.

It assumes that Hizbullah is a "puppet" of Iran and Syria.  It says nothing about the influence that the US and France exercise over the Hariri/Siniora camp.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Based on this editorial as "capstone" for many other recent pronouncements, I judge the editorial page of the Washington Post to be a neocon rag.

Pat Lang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500632.html

The Lebanese Constitution - A Technicality

"Technically, the government decision still requires the approval of President Emile Lahoud, an ally of Syria who has said the decision was unconstitutional given the ministers' resignations. Without his approval, it would go to parliament, which can be convened only by the speaker, Nabih Berri, an ally of Hezbollah. Berri's aides say he has no plans as of now to do so."  Shadid

-------------------------------------------------------------

"Technically?"

What does that mean?   The constitution of Lebanon requires that the president (Lahoud) approve such an action by the council of ministers.  If he does not give his approval the resolution goes back to the council of ministers.  If they approve it again, then it goes to parliament for approval over the president's objection.

Lahoud will not approve the measure and Nabih Berri (the speaker of parliament) says that he has "no plans" to call parliament into session.  Guess what?  No bill will be enacted.

One must ask, what is the United States "playing at" in Lebanon and Syria?

On "Late Edition" today Saad Hariri (leader of the US backed faction) was asked by Wolf Blitzer if his side had any actual evidence that the Syrian government had killed either his father (Rafiq) or Pierre Gemayel last week.  After mumbling in his very Saudi beard he said something about the two past UN investigations suggesting   that the Syrians were involved.

He then also suggested that Syria and Israel were the two parties trying to destabilize Lebanon.  Hmmm...

His father had learned not to say hings like that in public.

Pat Lang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500395.html

The insurgency has funds, lots of funds

"The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials."  Semple in NY Times

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NY Times quotes me here as saying that the NSC paper is "guessing."  What I meant and they did not make this clear, is that the authors of the NSC paper are "guessing" about the number.  While there is no doubt that the Sunni insurgent groups are "fully funded," the range of funding that they accept (70 to 200 million) means to me that the authors of the NSC paper have no real idea how large that number really is.

Pat Lang

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/middleeast/26insurgency.html?hp&ex=1164603600&en=b8c1fef0b3565f6a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"Go Big" Sure, but with what?

Senator McCain, AEI and a lot of other interested parties are now advocating a medium to large troop increase in Iraq to take more aggressive action, have a greater US presence and secure large parts of the country long enough to create effective security forces.  Numbers suggested range from 50,000 to 250,000 as increases in the number of combatants we should send into Iraq.  Some people are plainly advocating a policy of annihilation against the Shia militia armies.  Others want to re-take Anbar Province.  Others just seem to want more "street presence."  Abizeid wants more US advisers (he has a euphemism) with small units.  A lot of people have a variety of proposed uses for a "troop increase."  Would any or all of these measures change the ultimate result?  They might if the US persisted long enough.  How long?  Another 5 to 10 years probably would be my guess.

In any event, I will venture the thought that almost all of those talking about this do not understand the facts of the matter, the time, numbers, structures part of the problem.

Just heard...

Nora O'Donnell ask the following on "Hardball."

Question.  What has happened in the last 48 hours to make the situation so much different in Iraq?

Answer.  Nothing.  This civil war has been building gradually ever since the end of direct US rule (CPA) as the communities fight it out for power and wealth.  It was inevitable that they would do so.  Why people could not see that is a continuing mystery.  The civil war has simply reached this level in its process of "organic growth.  It has little to do with us.

Question.  Is this our worst nightmare?

Answer. Hell No!  The civil war and the insurgencies will continue to develop.  Our worst nightmare would be a total disintegration of Iraq into a war of all against all, and the situation is headed in that direction.  We should look to the security of our forces and embassy. NOW!!

As an unsolicited bit of advice I would suggest to the Bush Administration that they stop thinking of Maliki as a national government head and start thinking of him as a Shia partisan leader seeking the benefit if his community at the expense of others.  NOW!!

Pat Lang

Enemies Everywhere

"The White House said Cheney will discuss regional issues but provided no details about the hastily organized mission to Riyadh. The trip, however, comes on the eve of a summit between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Jordan next week. It will also overlap with a weekend meeting in Tehran between the presidents of Iran and Iraq to which the president of Syria has been invited."  Wright

------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, you have to ask yourself why the President, the VP and Rice are all going to be in "the region" in the same week.  Something brewing?  Something about to happen?  What could it be?  Robin Wright says that she thinks it is because Cheney feels the need to further urge King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to "get the Sunni Tribes of Iraq on board" for reconciliation talks.  I find it hard to believe that she really thinks that.  She must know that Sunni/Shia differences have passed the point of mutual anger and violence at which King Abdullah could "pull strings" and have an effect.  200 Shia killed yesterday, a ground attack on a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad today.  I wonder if the embassy and command in Iraq are now willing to concede the issue that this is a civil war.

No.  I think that '43 is going to give Maliki a real "hiding," and effectively threaten him with a loss of support if he does not act as though he owes the White House his obedience and loyalty rather than his sect and political partners.  At the end of the meeting there will probably be some sort of press moment.  It will mean nothing.

Cheney's mission to the big sandbox? Syria?  Iran? Maliki?  Notice on one or more of these?  That is a real possibility.  Desperation has set in at the White House.  They feel themselves surrounded by "enemies;" Baker/Hamilton, Democrats, the MSM (when not cringing at the foot of the throne), impertinent bloggers, insurgents, militias.  Who knows what might seem plausible when the "freedom agenda" is threatened.

Pat Lang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201784.html

"The Rise and Decline of the Neocons."

"This essay examines the rise and decline of the neo-conservatives and their post-Cold War agenda. We conclude that although the neo-conservatives and their allied aggressive nationalists, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, retain sufficient weight to hamper efforts to push through major reversals in US foreign policy, the increasing isolation of this political faction coupled with recent political events in the United States point to the potential emergence of a more cautious, realist-inspired agenda during the final two years of the Bush presidency. "  LA Times

---------------------------------------------------------------

It would be easy, far too easy to see all this recent history as a "morality play" in which the good and virtuous are arrayed against the "evil ones."  It would be easy to do that on either side of the divide or divides among us.  Let us not fall prey to that temptation.

Pat Lang

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK22Aa01.html

" someone has plans for Lebanon"

A feeling and realistic view from one of our colleagues.

Pat Lang

"Only in Lebanon can your allies seem as likely to have killed you as your enemies. Only in Lebanon would such an assassination take place the day the Syrians re-establish links with Iraq, the first step in their involvement in getting the US out and themselves back into the international fold, and the day before an expected HA demonstration. Therefore, the timing would seem to point to it not being Syrian handiwork. But then again, would that not be the best time to strike?
What of the victim?
On the one hand, an unknown but on the other, from one of the most prominent Christian families. Was his killing therefore a warning to the Pro-American March 14 group? Or, perhaps, the perfect candidate to enflame the Christian community?

Like the Summer war, someone has plans for Lebanon. Like the summer war, the eventual winner is unknown and more pertinently, an eventual winner is unlikely. And like the summer war, unless one of the sides makes a dramatic and unlikely u-turn, the people of Lebanon will suffer.

The Phoenix, a name based on the Cannanite inhabitants of Lebanon, the Phoenicians, lived a cycle of a glorious existence followed by a fiery end only to be reborn. Did someone, in telling that story, have foresight into the future of this country?"

Mo

Who Killed Pierre Gemayel?

"BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel was assassinated near Beirut on Tuesday, security sources said.

They said gunmen opened fire as his convoy drove through the Christian Sin el-Fil neighbourhood. Gemayel was rushed to hospital where he later died of his wounds.

Lebanon is in the throes of a political storm pitting the anti-Syrian ruling majority against the pro-Damascus opposition. The political tension threatens to spill into street confrontations.

Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said on Tuesday his depleted cabinet was legitimate despite the resignation of six pro-Syrian ministers, and warned that any anti-government protests could turn violent.

Pro-Syrian Hezbollah and its allies are preparing to take to the streets to topple Siniora's government, which they accuse of being allied with the United States, arguing that it has lost its legitimacy since Shi'ite Muslims are no longer represented.

The depleted cabinet last week approved draft U.N. statutes for a tribunal to try the killers of ex-premier Rafik al-Hariri despite the resignation of six pro-Syrian ministers.

Many Lebanese blame Syria for the killing of Hariri in a suicide truck bombing last year. Damascus denies involvement. A U.N. commission investigating the assassination has implicated senior Lebanese and Syrian security officials."

----------------------------------------------------------

This man was a fairly insignificant minister in Fouad Siniora's anti-Syrian cabinet.  His main significance is that his uncle Bashir was briefly president of Lebanon (assassinated), his father was president of Lebanon, and his grandfather, another Pierre, was founder of the semi-fascist "Phalange Party" of Lebanon.  That made this Pierre a great target as a symbol.

For decades, it has been a great parlor and coffee house game in Lebanon to speculate as to who killed the uncle.  Everyone has a theory.  None of them are conclusive and many start with the neocon epistemological device of saying "Well, it must have been..."

The Greater Middle East is moving along on its own course, spurred on by the goad of Bush Administration interventions in its business.

- Syria and Iraq have resumed diplomatic relations.  George Bush said he would be a uniter and not a divider.  Here is the proof. (irony)

- Syria, Iraq and Iran are holding a "seance" this weekend to discuss how to quiet down Iraq.  Bless them! (more irony).  This represents yet another step in the consolidation of Iranian strength in the GME and Iraq.  More "uniting!"

- I am told that Pierre Gemayel was not killed by the Aoun/Shia bloc, but rather by those who wish to delay disintegration of the present political system in Lebanon.  In other words, this was a "provocation" intended to get the masses out into the streets where noise will overwhelm negotiation.  (no irony at all)  This may seem fanciful to many, but that really means that you do not know Lebanon.

Pat Lang

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-21T142505Z_01_L21837602_RTRUKOC_0_UK-LEBANON-MINISTER.xml

Civil War II?

Yes.  I know a lot of you hate MEMRI, but you should read this carefully.  This corresponds closely to what I am hearing from Leanon and the parties to this conflict.

In the context of these translations from the Arabic:

"Government" means the cabinet of the Hariri/Siniora coalition.

"Majority" means the same thing plus its supporters.

"Opposition means the Hizbullah/Amal/Aoun side.

Pat Lang

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=IA30106

Cheerleader

 A lot of us thought it was not a good idea to have women cadets at the Virginia Military Institute.  Now we are not so sure.  Watch the cheerleader with the headlock on the Citadel man.  Yes.  Yes.  We are ruffians and violent to boot.

Pat Lang

Download Cheerleader.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWma49goHjc

www.vmi.edu

Changing Times.

I understand that the Attorney General of the United States said last week that the problem with a particular ruling by a federal judge in the Middle West was that the man was using an undesirable and dangerous definition of "freedom."  Maybe this is more of the same stuff?

Pat Lang

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=40035&dbname=2006_register

The Department of Homeland Security proposed new rules back in July that would fundamentally undermine the right of American citizens to travel abroad.  Public carriers--airlines, cruise lines, even fishing boats--will be required to submit the names of all passengers to Homeland Security prior to departure and to obtain permission from Homeland Security to board those passengers.  These new rules will take effect January 14, 2007.

The non-profit Identity Project has filed comments with Homeland Security urging that the rule changes be dropped.  They argue that they violate the U. S. Constitution and international law:

The [proposed rule change] would replace a requirement for ex post facto notice to the CBP of information about who is on each vessel (ship or plane) with anunconstitutional system of prior restraint of international travel, entirely unauthorized by statute and inconsistent with the U.S. obligations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights.  Under the proposed rules, orders by the CBP [Customs adn Border Patrol] to common carriers not to transport specific persons would not be based on restraining orders (injunctions) issued by competent judicial authorities. Instead,they would be based on an undefined, secret, administrative permission-to-travel (“clearance”) procedure subject to none of the procedural or substantive due process required for orders prohibiting or restricting the exercise of protected First Amendment rights. From the authority of law enforcement officers andagencies to enforce certain types of orders, once lawfully issued by competent judicial authorities, the [proposed rule change] would usurp for the CBP the authority to issue those orders on its own.

"The Advisor" 18 November, 2006

Download the_advisor_18_november_2006.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19cnd-policy.html?hp&ex=1163998800&en=3cdc762ab54b839d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

----------------------------------------------------------

"Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who regularly advises President Bush on Iraq, said today that a full military victory was no longer possible there. He thus joined a growing number of leading conservatives openly challenging the administration’s conduct of the war and positive forecasts for it. "  NY Times

----------------------------------------------------------

I would say that this is a real turning point.  Kissinger has been advising Bush privately and for him to say this in the open is some sort of signal.  Whether or not his "pupil" will accept the signal remains to be seen.

Pat Lang

Right Wing but not Conservative

""Laura and I were talking about -- we were talking about how amazing it is we're here in Vietnam," Bush said. "And one of the most poignant moments of the drive in was passing the lake where John McCain got pulled out of the lake. And he's a friend of ours. He suffered a lot as a result of his imprisonment, and yet, we passed the place where he was, literally, saved, in one way, by the people pulling him out."

In fact, according to McCain, who broke both arms and his right knee while ejecting from his A-4 Skyhawk, he was hauled out of the lake on two bamboo poles and beaten on the shore by an angry mob.

In his autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain wrote that the crowd, shouting wildly, stripped his clothes off, "spitting on me, kicking and striking me repeatedly." A woman, possibly a nurse, intervened, and a Vietnamese army truck arrived "to take me away from this group of aggrieved citizens who seemed intent on killing me," McCain wrote.

He described subsequent repeated beatings and torture at the hands of his captors in the notorious Hoa Lo prison, known to American POWs as the "Hanoi Hilton.""  Washpost

----------------------------------------------------------

Bush's comments are a "tale told by an idiot."

Now, maybe it is understandable that the inhabitants of Hanoi wanted to kill this enemy pilot who had fallen into their hands.  Bad things often happen in the heat of battle, but for Bush to torture this long past event into something with which he can feel good about McCain's agony and the people of Hanoi is reprehensible. 

I understand that he has also held communist Vietnam up as an example of what Iraq may become "if we do not quit." Has he missed the fact that there is no real freedom in Vietnam now?  Has he missed the fact that, having deprived the peoples of Vietnam of their religious  rights, the government is now giving those rights back as privileges?  Has he missed the fact that the non-Vietnamese Montagnard peoples of Vietnam are still treated as sub-human by the Vietnamese and their government?  Has he missed that?

The Viet Minh would easily have unified Vietnam in 1954-55 after the defeat of the French.  They had defeated all their native competitors.  Only the growing political and then military intervention of the United States prevented that until 1975.  Unity was not a problem in Vietnam.  The government that Bush seems to admire had no serious problem in "bringing the country together" after we left.

Maybe we should get out of the way so that another "unity" government that Bush can praise can take over in Iraq. 

Pat Lang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700224_2.html

The Honor Guard

"A baby boomer who came of age during the turbulent Vietnam era and spent the war stateside as a member of the Texas Air National Guard, the president called himself amazed by the sights of the onetime war capital. He pronounced it hopeful that the United States and Vietnam have reconciled differences after a war that ended 31 years ago when the Washington-backed regime in Saigon fell.

"My first reaction is history has a long march to it, and societies change and relationships can constantly be altered to the good," Bush said after speeding past signs of both poverty and the commerce produced by Asia's fastest-growing economy.

The president said there was much to be learned from the divisive Vietnam War — the longest conflict in U.S. history — as his administration contemplates new strategies for the increasingly difficult war in Iraq, now in its fourth year. But his critics see parallels with Vietnam — a determined insurgency and a death toll that has drained public support — that spell danger for dragging out U.S. involvement in Iraq.

"It's just going to take a long period of time for the ideology that is hopeful — and that is an ideology of freedom — to overcome an ideology of hate," Bush said after having lunch at his lakeside hotel with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, whose country has been one of America's strongest allies in Iraq, Vietnam and other conflicts.  Yahoo News

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, at least he got to visit, finally.  Maybe someone can tell me what he is talking about in the highlighted sections.  Does he mean that Vietnam has "arrived" and is an acceptable "freedom state?"  Does he mean that he thinks of Iraq as a decade long project as VN was?  What does he mean?

Oh, by the way, that guy at present arms just by Bush in the picture, I think I remember his great-uncle.

Pat Lang

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration

"Fiasco," - A Book Review. W. Patrick Lang

Download fiascoa_book_review.doc

Download fiascoa_book_review.pdf

This review will appear in the next quartely number of "Middle East Policy."  I will post the URL for it when it appears.

Pat Lang

Falling Back to Re-Group?

"The White House has turned to the Iraq Study Group, boosting the congressionally mandated panel's profile in the past week both in a postelection press conference and again with a day full of meetings between the group's members and administration officials.
    Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten met yesterday with the group, headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana for 75 minutes yesterday.
    The group spent the day at the White House, also meeting with the secretaries of defense and state, the national intelligence and CIA directors, top generals and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Today, its members will meet with Democrats such as former National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard C. Holbrooke and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher.
    Expectations for the group are growing, and those on both sides of the political divide say it could be a chance for the White House to achieve a face-saving way forward in Iraq."  Washtimes

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If body language and long faces are indications, this was not all that great a meeting.  Mr. Bush is reported to have told the ISGers that they have to remember that military strategy has to be formed based on actual conditions on the ground.

So true!  But... Military strategy is constrained not only by "conditions on the ground," but also by policy guidance from the national command authority.  In other words, military commanders try to adapt the methodology of what they are doing in order to carry out national policy.  They do not have the luxury of re-defining the mission. They do not have the luxury of re-defining the mission.  In other words every single person in the armed forces has the job of carrying out George Bush's policy.  They do not have the job of telling him why he should have a different policy.

That is why it is useless for the media to interview generals (or anyone else on active duty in the military) about "what should be done in Iraq."   Soldiers asked to answer that question have no choice but to tell the interviewer (and the audience) what they think is necessary to carry out the national policy guidance that they have been given.  They are not at liberty to suggest a new policy.

'43 has gotten used to this situation, so, when he tells the world that he welcomes suggestions about "what to do in Iraq" what he is saying is that he will listen to suggestions about how to carry out his policy.

Pat Lang

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061114-123342-9982r.htm

"Borat" - Alan Farrell

Download Borat.doc

Alan Farrell

"May It Be"

I am still thinking over the decider's actions today.  Enjoy.  pl

Download may_it_be.wmv

'41 did not know about Gates.

For all those enamored of the '41 is "comin' to town" school of future history, I offer the factoid that Brit Hume announced on FNS today that GHW Bush did not know anything about Gates' appointment as SECDEF until called about it on the day of junior's announcement of the appointment.

Now maybe you don't like Hume? Plausible..  He reminds me a bit of John Wayne, another media hawk, who portrayed a real fighter but never served.

On the same program Bartlett, the White House talking dog, firmly defended the administration's present course of action in Iraq.

Hume may not be a nice man.  (He snarls a lot), but does anyone doubt his connection to the Bush '43 White House?

Folks,  it undoubtedly is the hope, plan and aspiration of well meaning people that pressure and adult advice will cause the Decider to decide differently, but that is a futile hope.  People who think that junior will change his position or that he can be prevented from following his present course mistake him and need to study the Constitution.

Unless some catastrophe intervenes, two years from now we will still be fighting in Iraq with much the same number  of forces, and by then decline will have set in at home and abroad in ways that can only be hinted at now.

People in the Washington/New York establishment act and talk as though the Iraq problem is an American political problem and that the Iraqis and other Muslims are acted upon rather than being actors in the drama.  McCain said today on MTP that al-Maliki " has to understand," and that he "has to" to do this or that.  Well, in fact al-Maliki is just one of the players in the ethnic, factional and sectarian struggle for Iraq, and lacks both the power or the will to do anything except work toward the Shia domination of as much of Iraq as the Shia can hang on to.  Bartlett referred today on FNS to the "sovereign government of Iraq."  Well, they may be sovereign, but they are not the sovereign government of Iraq.

Pat Lang

In Memoriam - November 11, 2006

Sergeant Willsun M. Mock, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment was killed in action  22 October, 2006.  Sergeant Mock was serving his second tour of duty in Iraq.  PL

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"The minstrel boy to the war has gone,

In the ranks of death you'll find him;

His father's sword he hath girded on,

And his wild harp slung behind him;

"Land of Song!" cried the warrior bard,

"Tho' all the world betrays thee,

One sword, at least, thy right shall guard,

One faithful harp shall praise thee!"

Thomas Moore

http://www.ingeb.org/songs/theminst.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/10/btsc.damon/index.html

The ISG farce, Part 2

"..The group of mainstream foreign policy experts is not poised to make radical suggestions when it unveils its report, but official Washington has expected both parties to seize on its ideas for political cover..."  Kessler and Ricks in Washpost.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't changed my mind about the likelihood of a major change in American policy in Iraq.  The "decider" ain't got it in him.  What do people think he is going to "decide?"  To withdraw from Iraq?  If he does that, then he will be seen for all time as a failed president.  He knows that.  Is he going to accept giving Syria and Iran a direct stake in the outcome in Iraq?  His position on Iran is public and well known.  More failure on his part will be perceived if he lets the Persians play the role that they want.  Syria?  Hah!!  Hah!! Hah!! 

What we should hope for is that he has no more compunction about abandoning his "game face" vis a vis the "evildoers" than he has announced with regard to the Democrats whom he was denouncing as akin to traitors a week ago.

Most amazing of all is the "newsy" hysteria being generated by the 24/7 broadcast media over the ISG/SECDEF business.  In recent years it has become evident that the cable news outfits have become generators of mass hysteria.  They bring in their tub thumping anchors, their "experts," their favorite print news people, their favorite congress people and among themselves conduct an orgy of mutual intellectual masturbation that starts with rumor and quickly becomes self sustaining.

The Baker/ISG thing is just the latest, and will not be the last example.  The same press people were deeply complicit in building war hysteria before we entered Iraq.  These are the same folks who now eagerly agree with each other that "no one" could have known.

Pat Lang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802517.html

A Mass Delusion?

For days now my telephone has been ringing with calls from people who want me to tell them that sanity and adult leadership are returning to the shores of the Potomac.  A man called today to have me say a few words for his national radio network.  The theme of his program was clearly supposed to be that the cumulative effect of; the Iraq Study Group, the wipeout of Republican power in the Congress, the assembly of Bush '41 elders and the coming of the newly resuscitated Robert Gates to the Pentagon mean that - ALL WILL BE WELL!!!

I told the foreign gent that I would believe that to be true when I begin to see something in the President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces which makes me think that "the decider" has decided a different decision.  I don't see it yet.

I watched his press conference yesterday and what I saw is a man who is writhing in what must be torture for him.  He is no longer able to scold the American people for fear that they may savage him yet further, but is still enraged by resistance to his will.

Let's see what his reactions are to the recommendations of the Baker -Hamilton Group ..... Then we will know.

Pat Lang

Webb’s Dog-Tags

Jim Webb doesn’t want his friends to talk about his combat record. He thinks it is "unseemly" to trade on one’s service to country for political gain. It is like him to use that word. He is an old fashioned patriot and warrior. For the same reason, he never talks about George Allan. It would be unseemly. Politics in the United States has degenerated mightily during my lifetime. We used to have leaders like Harry Truman who really did believe that the “buck” stopped with him. Senior military leadership is not what it once was. We once had leaders like George C. Marshall, who, without complaint of any kind, accepted FDR’s appeal that he stay in Washington and allow Eisenhower to command the Normandy invasion. Marshall knew that FDR was effectively denying him future national leadership. He never said a word about it. He maintained a principled silence until his death.

Since Jim Webb won’t talk about what he did in Vietnam when the “chips were down,” I will. Here is the substance of the citation that describes why he was awarded the Navy Cross in Vietnam.

“..deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex…. First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out. Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers. … He then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. ….Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker.” It is unseemly to talk about this? The Navy Cross is the country’s second highest medal for battlefield courage.

Think about this. This very young man led his forty-five marines into a fortified enemy position. Three enemy soldiers suddenly appeared. He personally captured the three of them. Then, he moved to a second bunker and in spite of what has just happened, called on them to surrender. The risk in this was appalling. Not many of us would have taken the chance of waiting to see what these new enemies would do. I would not have. In attacking a third bunker, Webb used his own body to shield one of his men from the blast of an enemy grenade. I am surprised that he did not receive the Medal of Honor.

Unseemly to talk about this? Think about the complete lack of focus on self that these actions exemplify. Do we not need leaders like this?

My God. I pray that we will always have leaders like this who can unflinchingly do their duty, and then, a generation later persist in principled silence and self-sacrifice in the way that Jim insists must be.

Senator Allen is reported to treasure the “dog tags” of a constituent, a man who was killed in Iraq. The man’s mother gave Allen the identity tags. Soldiers everywhere will appreciate Allen’s sentiment in this matter, but it should be kept clearly in mind that Jim Webb has his own “dog-tags.”

Webb’s “dog-tags” were not given to him. He paid for them in blood.

W. Patrick Lang
Colonel (Ret.) US Army
Alexandria, Virginia

A Pitiful Sect

"Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have.""  Vanity Fair

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The men interviewed in this article were among those who made the case for war with Iraq, occupation of the country and revolution in the Middle East.

Perle, as usual, is slippery and deceptive.  He falsely implies here that he, and his chums, did not use every propaganda, information operations and rhetorical tool available to make the case that Iraq was a menace, a current menace, to the United States in both the field of WMD and as an active ally of the international jihadis.

Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Luti, Scooter Libby, Harold Rhode and the Wurmsers are all missing from among the interviewees here but should not be forgotten in the "reckoning."  They all played major roles in the catastrophes that have befallen us.

Revolutions typically devour their own.  Danton and Robespierre played a high price for "riding the tiger" in the french Revolution.  The neocon "revolution" has failed miserably when confronted by reality on the ground in Iraq.  The failed neocon revolution has cost us dearly in death, mutilation, distorted lives, treasure and honor.

If the Democrats win control of the House they will have a solemn duty to see that these wretches and their foreign allies are dealt with appropriately and that their fantasist political sect is relegated to the obscurity that it deserves.

Wake up Republicans!  These are people who have tricked and abused you.

Pat Lang

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

Cheney on Jefferson

""It may not be popular with the public. It doesn't matter, in the sense that we have to continue what we think is right," Cheney said. "That's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."

Iraq has been by far the largest issue in Tuesday's election, and many analysts say it has put at risk GOP majorities in both the House and Senate. Nonetheless, Cheney said, the administration is not considering a fundamentally different course.

"I think it'll have some effect perhaps in the Congress," he said of the election's outcome, "but the president's made clear what his objective is. It's victory in Iraq. And it's full speed ahead on that basis. And that's exactly what we're going to do.""  Washpost

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah! Screw the public and their fickle and uninformed opinions..  Yeah!  Who do they think they are?  Yeah!  Let's see if Pelosi has guts enough to do anything about it.  Yeah! 

Stephen Colbert (maybe)

----------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah!

Pat Lang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/03/AR2006110301619.html

Tiger Force

A commenter asked my opinion about the "Tiger Force" controversy.  As it happened I had given my opinion some time ago to a correspondent.  I don't believe that I posted this on the blog.

Pat Lang

From: Patrick Lang [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:22 PM
To: 'Michael Keyes'
Subject: RE: Tiger Force

Attachments: tigercrest.jpg

Dr. Keyes

Yes.  I have read it.  As it happens the "Newshour" once asked me to research the "Tiger Force" because their media reporter wanted to make a fuss over the series that had been written for a Cleveland or Cincinnati newspaper and for which they had received a journalism prize.  After looking at this my conclusion was, and is that the story has been sensationalized and exaggerated wildly and irresponsibly.

The unit in question was the reconnaissance platoon of a line infantry battalion of the 101st Division.  The battalion was 1/327 Infantry Regiment.  A VN airmobile infantry battalion had four rifle companies, and a headquarters company.  The rifle companies had around 150 men each most of the time and the headquarters company had in it the battalion mortar platoon, headquarters and signal people and the battalion reconnaissance platoon with around 35 men commanded by a lieutenant.  The function of this platoon was to scout around, do reconnaissance and perform force protection for the battalion by patrolling out around the battalion so that surprise would not occur.  You may know that in the Army the commander of any ground reconnaissance unit is always referred to as "Tiger."  I have attached the unofficial and unauthorized breast patch that these men devised for themselves.  The members of the platoon were ordinary airborne infantrymen of the VN War period.  They were paratroopers.  The 101st in VN was an airmobile division not a paratroop division but there was one brigade in it that was on "jump status."  Nobody in the battalion was a Special Forces or Special Operations soldier.  This platoon was not a special anything.

The number 120 as to the number of people involved is highly misleading.  The platoon numbered maybe a third of that.  But in VN rotations were continual both back to the states and to other units in the battalion and division.  This unit was probably a desired location for enlisted people since these 35 men and their lieutenant were pretty much at liberty to wander around the area of operations of the battalion.  Soldiers like being in small units on detached duty believing correctly that they are more likely to escape from fatigue details and the close supervision of senior sergeants and officers.  As a result they seek this kind of duty.  Given the opportunity, junior soldiers will always describe their duties in the "sexiest" possible terms.  Would they say that their platoon was "special?"  You bet they would, then and subsequently to anyone who would listen.

It seems likely that the battalion commander during the period under discussion (along with the intelligence and operations staff of the battalion) at the very least failed to exercise adequate supervision over the recon platoon and that the members of the platoon committed various excesses against the Vietnamese population of the province in which they were located.  So far as I know, the misdeeds of this little unit were limited to a four month period.  This probably corresponds to the period of command of a particular battalion CO.  These command tours were normally six months long.  I do not know if the misdeeds of this recon platoon were ever reported to division.  Both battalion and brigade commanders would have been reluctant to report this kind of thing if it they discovered it and it reflected on them.  In particular, the brigade commander present after a battalion change of command would have been vulnerable to a charge of neglect of duty which would have ended his career.

So...  There is no evidence that this was other than an isolated incident involving a failure of leadership in that brigade.  American troops did not wander the countryside molesting the Vietnamese.  I was there and I know that to be true.

There was nothing "special" about this little unit and its deeds or crimes were indicative of nothing that could be described as general behavior.

As for investigative action, the 101st left that part of Vietnam a year or so later and the division had left VN altogether by 1972 when I arrived back in country for my last tour.  When was the investigation?  Think about it.  What could have been done by then?

Regards

W. Patrick Lang
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Keyes [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Tiger Force

COL Lang,

I have been a big fan of your blog for some time now and find myself agreeing with most of what you have to say about the war in Iraq and the military in general (which I suppose is a good thing if I am to continue to enjoy the blob <G>.)  I am retired from the reserve (COL USAR MC) and find that I still have a fierce interest and, to some extent, loyalty to those who taught me about the military and the military forces in general. (I was active duty Navy during VN, and Army during Desert
Storm.)  So I come into this question with an open mind:

Have you read this article:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4028285

and what is your opinion of it?

Michael J. Keyes, MD

"Where Plan A Left Ahmad Chalabi" Dexter Filkins

"There was the money issue, too. Throughout the 1990’s, as the C.I.A. and Congress funneled millions of dollars to Chalabi’s organization, the Iraqi National Congress, rumors swirled about corruption. One of the skeptics was W. Patrick Lang, a senior official at the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 1995, Lang told me, he was sitting in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, when he overheard a group of Iraqis talking about the money they had received from the American government.

“I knew who these guys were, and I heard them speaking Arabic, and it was obviously Iraqi Arabic,” Lang said. “So I went over and sat next to them and listened. So what they were talking about was how to spend the Americans’ money, going on shopping trips, stuff like that. Oh, they were talking about going shopping for jewelry for women, toys for kids. Consumer goods. They were also talking about Las Vegas. ‘We will sneak out of here and go to Las Vegas. We have a lot of money now.’ ”

A couple of years later, Lang said, he visited the office of Senator Trent Lott, then the Senate majority leader. After introducing an Arab businessman to Lott, Lang sat in Lott’s anteroom with a number of Capitol Hill staff members who helped draft the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided millions of dollars to Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. They were praising Chalabi: “They were talking about him, that Chalabi fits into this plan as a very worthwhile, virtuous exemplar of modernization, somebody who could help reform first Iraq and then the Middle East. They were very pleased with themselves.” Lang, an old Middle East hand who had worked in Iraq in the 1980’s, said he was stunned. “You guys need to get out more,” Lang recalls saying at the time. “It’s a fantasy.”

Years later, Lang said, many of the same men who were sitting in Lott’s office that day became key players in the Pentagon’s plans for an invasion of Iraq." Dexter Filkins

---------------------------------------------------

At the time of the incident in the Four Seasons I was no longer working for DIA, having left about a year before. Pat Lang

http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2006/11/05/magazine/1154652190060.html?8tpw&emc=tpw

Halp!

"Un cri de coeur," as Carry would say.

Pat Lang

Sovereign Iraq

"U.S. troops lifted roadblocks around a militia stronghold in Baghdad yesterday after Iraq's Prime Minister ordered them out, flexing his political muscle after a week of public friction with Washington ahead of U.S. midterm elections.

Supporters of anti-U.S. Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr celebrated in the streets of Sadr City, bastion of his Mehdi Army. An aide hailed the end of a "barbaric siege," begun to help find a kidnapped U.S. soldier possibly being held by militiamen.

But Iraq's Sunni Vice-President said the move threatened a lull in sectarian death-squad violence. The once-dominant Sunni minority blames the Mehdi Army for much of the killing, and Washington is pressing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to disband the movement.

"The Commander-in-Chief, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, has ordered the lifting of all barriers and checkpoints to open roads and ease traffic in Sadr City and other districts of Baghdad," a statement from the Prime Minister's office said."  Reuters

----------------------------------------------------------------

This is a watershed.  All but the most diehard conspiracy fans will see that al-Maliki's government is not a puppet of anything but his constituent Shia militia factions and militias.

This signals a new Shia willingness to defy the US occupation that serves to shield their creation of a Shia run rump state of Iraq, a state which will never control the Sunni heartland or th Kurdish homeland but which will maintain irredentist claims there "for another day."

One must wonder what would have happened if the United States had not accepted the order of the sovereign government of Iraq.

The chart is from USCENTCOM and was in the NYT 1 November, 2006

Pat Lang

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061101.IRAQ01/TPStory/TPInternational/America/

Download CENTCOMSLIDECHAOS.doc

Kerry the "Truthful"

"But then Kerry said: "You know education - if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.""  Sydney Morning Herald

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I sensitive about this?  You bet!

A botched joke?  Sure, but a botched joke in which a clever writer tried to communicate the usual Kerry ambiguity about the "grunts" and in which Kerry's delivery betrayed his real attitude?  Probably.  This is the man who told his friends from the cute little boats that he wasn't talking about them when he told the senate of the United States that the US infantry in Vietnam was the functional equivalent of Genghiz Khan's horde.

Don Imus tried today to give him the chance to make a really forthright repudiation of his mistake.  He would not take the opportunity offered, and when Imus pointed out to him that the remark, error or not, was especially damaging to the Democratic Party because of his "previous remarks," Kerry insisted on saying that he just told the truth, as he had always told the truth, "as he had when he returned from South East Asia...."  This is a reference to his slander of American soldiers' service in Vietnam.  He was then the spokesman for the "Winter Soldier" crowd and then publicly made assertions about supposed atrocities in VN which he eventually admitted he had never observed personally.  This is the same man who bought medals in a war surplus store so that he could take part in a "street theater" scene involving throwing away military medals while he carefully kept his own.

Democrats!  Beware!  This man is poison for your chances.

Pat Lang

PS - Really ugly comments will be deleted before posting.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/kerrys-attempt-at-humour-no-joke/2006/11/01/1162339918697.html