Sic Semper Tyrannis

Iraq's parties condemn Senate Resolution

"The groups, which represented both Shiites and Sunnis, said the plan would hamper Iraq's future stability, and they suggested parliament draft a law permanently banning the splitting of Iraq along sectarian or ethnic lines.

"This proposal was based on the incorrect reading and unrealistic estimations of Iraq's past, present and future," according to the statement read by Izzat al-Shahbandar, a representative of the Iraqi National List, a secular political party."  Yahoo News

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

There may be groups in Iraq that have not yet condemned last week's senate resolution encouraging the acceptance of the loosest sort of confederation for the country, but they can't be very numorous.

That may be a surprise for many who are witnesses to the inability of the  various "sectarian or ethnic" groups to work out accommodations among them which would elevate the interests of the whole above then interests of particular groups. 

It should not be a surprise.  People often hold conflicting views.  Most people are good at it.  In the United States, people are perpetually displeased with the job performance of the United States Congress, thinking the members to be venal, ineffective blowhards.  At the same time, the great majority of people in the country consistently vote to support their own Congressman.  This is a prevalent phenomenon throughout the country.  In this way, some of the most incredible losers imaginable are re-elected over and over again.

Iraqis and Arabs in general are not different.  On the one hand they are conditioned by heritage, education and their own media to believe in unity in all things.  "Party" (hizb) is a relatively new Western  word imported into Arab thinking.  The word itself still carries the burden of a slightly negative connotation.  "Faction" (ta'ifa) is a much older expression for much the same thing and that word is altogether negative in Arab thinking.   

Warring against this psychology is the anthropological reality in which the peoples are endlessly divided into factions, tribes, sects, localities etc. in an endless struggle for real or imagined survival in a region short of everything but oil.  Even that is unevenly divided.

It is still the case that most of what I hear from Americans about Iraq and the Arab World is just nonsense and the worst kind of wishful thinking and "mirror imaging."  Soldiers, politicians, policy wonks, journalists, they are  all the same.  Most americans seem afflicted with an inability to see past the cleverness and good manners that so often are a mask behind which Middle Easterners deal with us.

We have learned little in five years.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070930/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Open Thread #3 (maybe)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801554.html

This is an interesting article on sheikhly attitudes but I can't think of anything I would want to say about it that I have not said already.

I have something else to do.

So, go ahead and ventilate over whatever you have been brooding on.  pl

Iraq and the US Senate

""The government and its Premier [Nuri al-Maliki] reject this vote," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. "It is the Iraqis who decide these sorts of issues, no one else," Dabbagh said on state-run Al-Iraqiyya television. "The Iraqi Parliament too should express its total rejection of this plan." The plan, touted by backers as the sole hope of forging a federal state out of sectarian strife, was approved by the US Senate Wednesday in a 75-23 vote. The nonbinding resolution would provide for decentralizing Iraq in a federal system to stop the country from falling deeper into civil war. It proposes to separate Iraq into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni entities, with a federal government in Baghdad in charge of border security and oil revenues. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on Friday condemned the resolution, saying it would complicate matters further in the war-torn country. The Bosnia-style plan "would add new complications to the already difficult Iraqi situation," GCC chief Abdel-Rahman al-Attiyah said in a statement. "Instead of calling for division, the causes that led to the current situation should be addressed. These include the [US-led] occupation, the sectarian and ethnic quota system, absence of law and security and the paralysed administration.""  The Daily Star - Beirut

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

(IRONY ALERT! NOT EVERY WORD THAT FOLLOWS SHOULD BE READ LITERALLY)

The US Senate has voted to "soft-partition" Iraq?  Well as a famous TV "talk man" said a few weeks ago - "Who runs that place, us or them?"  I guess we think that we do..

The Bush/Cheney Collective ("resistance is futile") is notably made up of ideologues who proclaim their devotion to revolutionary social change in the Islamic (and other) World(s).  Their adherents are various.  There are first and foremost their brethren and sisteren in the "crusade" for secular righteousness.  Then there are the Mayberry Machiavellians who were imported from Texas. Those have thinned out lately.  Then there are the simpletons who still can't tell you what the difference is between a Sunni and a Shia and who don't think it matters.  There are many, many of those and they are not reading this. There was a back-bencher congressman from the Southwest on TV this week who simply refused to accept the idea that the war in Iraq was about anything but a kind of Manichean division of humanity into the forces of good and the forces of evil, the children of light and the children of darkness.  He would not discuss the war situation in any other terms.  I suppose that he thinks that the Lord Jesus enters into it somewhere as well, and maybe the pope ,although I doubt if he thinks that Benedict plays on the "good guys'" team.

Now, I know how much a lot of you feel vindicated by Greenspan's pronouncement on the causes of the present mess, but I have to tell you that he does not impress me as a savant on the subject of the peoples of the Middle East, or on the neocons either.  So far as I know they never thought well of his ideas about anything but interest rates and he was never one of their counselors.

Those Arabs (Sunni, Shia and Christian) are pesky people.  They have the "gall" to think for themselves.  The US Senate has now pronounced itself on the subject of how Iraq should be organized.  They don't accept that?  Who the hell are they to resist when it is futile? The "greatest deliberative body in the world" has delivered itself of "the word."  What more is there to say?

Those pesky Arabs are also infested with "oldthink."  This is an expression from the early phases of the Cheney/Bush Collective's revolution.   The poor fools (Arabs) don't think that federalism is a good idea.  (They think they have tried it many times)  They like UNITY (tawhiid).  They think that diversity is weakness.  They think that federalism will inevitably lead either to a final complete dissolution of the state of Iraq or a weakened state so enfeebled as to be a shadow of its former self.  Those poor foolish Arabs are the product of a modern cultural and educational development which caused them to believe that a unified Iraq is good, but a federal Iraq is or will be a disaster.  They have always felt that way in the modern state of Iraq.

Now, the Kurds may secretly want something else but they will be very careful how they express that secret desire.

The Senate resolution on this matter?  It is DOA, and we lack the power to inflict anything like that on the Iraqis or anyone else in the Middle East.  Note the GCC reaction.

Down at the bottom of this article, some general or other opines (used to be a good Army word) that AQ may decide to cuts its losses in Iraq.  That might be true, but, contrary to the opinion of the congressman from the Southwest, it will not solve the situation that the Iraqis find themselves in.  A "post AQ intervention" Iraq will still be a "beached whale" beset with savage and unrelenting internal struggle and numerous wars over power and wealth in what was a moderately well integrated state before 2003. Unfortunately, our departure won't fix that either.  pl

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=85679

Amendment No. 3017 - A step toward war with Iran

"“What do we do with terrorist organizations if they are involved against us?” Mr. Webb asked in a speech on Tuesday. “We attack them.”

Even with the two paragraphs deleted, Mr. Webb voted against the resolution. So did a number of other Democrats who are among the harshest critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the war. The measure passed by a vote of 76 to 22.

Among those voting against it was Senator Joseoh F. Biden, Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said he feared that the administration could use the measure to justify military action against Iran. NY Times

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

Iraq is becoming a "side show."  Iran is the thing.  It was a good idea to take the two offending paragraphs out of the draft resolution but the designation of the IRGC, a major agency of the Iranian governent as a terrorist and therefore criminal organization is clearly a step on the road to war. 

Governments which willfuly maintain and harbor within them criminal groups must inevitably be seen as criminal themselves.

As Senator Webb asked in floor debate, "What do we do with terrorist organizations?"

Reid and Clinton voted for this?  Bush/Cheney and the Flatheads can now justify any action against Iran, and they can do it without further resort to Congress.

How is this effectively different from the resolutions passed in 2002 which gave Bush the authorities which he is still using?"  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Subject: Medical Alert - Blackwater Fever

The Brits have a way with words, a "touch of the poet?"  The ribbons below represent Harry Flashman's decorations.  He would have fit right in with Blackwater.  He said that his only skills were "fencing, fornication and foreign languages."  He was being modest.  He was also a great horseman.  pl

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

"Blackwater Fever - The Symptoms

A common disease among international contractors working in Iraq,
Afghanistan and various
other 3rd world hellholes. Frequently attacks young men with only 1 war or
enlistment under their belt, State Dept agents, Former LEOs, anyone
associated with an Ambassadors detail and occasional poseurs. BKWF
has many symptoms; if you have the following you may be infected:

1. Large amount of primping, i.e. mousse in your hair despite the
fact you live in a war zone.

2. Your forearms break out in tattoos, often tribal or USMC related

3. All your shirts are skintight "Under Armor" T-shirts

4. Have used, currently using or consider using steroids

5. Refer to yourself as a "Shooter" or "Operator for Blackwater"

6. Look down upon all other PSD teams that are NOT on the
Ambassadors Detail, to include other Blackwater employees.

7. Grow a beard to blend in with the locals, even though you are a
6ft tall blonde with a "Death before Dishonor tattoo.

8. Think the UN pool is a good place to pickup chicks

9. Are arrogant and condescending to people with more experience,
training and who make more money than you.

10. Forget that doing a mission that has been performed in the past
by Tier 1 assets does not make you a Tier 1 asset.

What Ahmadinajad said at Columbia

I listened to it all.

His remarks were "bracketed" for me by those of Bollinger (the Columbia president) who sought to distance himself from any possible accusation of hospitality and Nora O'Donnell (MSNBC anchor) who sought to distance herself from any possible accusation of neutrality.

Ahmadinajad said:

- Scholars should seek the truth.

- That he does not dispute the facts of the Holocaust, but that he thinks that scholarship should continue on the details and on the effect on his part of the world.  He particularly stressed the innocence of the Palestinian people in the matter of the Holocaust.  Since scholarship continues on the matter of this subject (the Holocaust) under the sponsorship of the US Holocaust Museum, this was an interesting point.

- He said that the nature of Palestine/Israel should be determined by referendum among "Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians."  This is a variation on the long standing Arab desire for either a bi-national state or a state that is not specifically a Jewish state.  He did not specify whether his referendum would include Palestinians of the diaspora.  That, of course, would make a difference in the outcome.

- He said that the Iranian nuclear enrichment program was forced on them by foreign defaults on agreements for nuclear electric assistance.  He said that the Iranian sites are all under IAEA inspection and will remain that way.  He also said that the concentration level of their enrichment did not meet the requirement for weapons production.

- He abjured the idea of nuclear weapons and said they do not want any.  Presumably the IAEA inspection regime applies.

- When challenged on Iranian government support of international terrorist groups, he said that Iran herself is the victim of extensive terrorist attack sponsored by foreign governments.  He clearly had in mind the MEK.  He said that all parties should stop this kind of activity.  There may have been an implied offer in that.  The Persians are subtle people.  Perhaps they are too subtle for his audience

- He accepted the idea of wide negotiations with the US to resolve all differences..

- In response to a challenge by Bollinger, he invited Columbia to send delegations of faculty and students to any or all of Iran's 400 universities.

- He insisted that Iranian women are free.

- He made a lame joke out of Iranian capital punishments for homosexual behavior.  The esoteric gist was, "we don't care what you think about it."

- He made some goofy reference to "the real story on 9/11."  This was at the end and I guess he just couldn't "hold it together" any longer.

It was quite a performance.  If this were a presidential debate, I would judge him the winner based on rhetorical skill and coolness under fire.  The student audience got quieter and quieter as he spoke.  There was no booing at the end.

On the whole I think this event was meaningless.  I think that the die is cast and that this will have no effect on the international game.  pl

All mercenaries in Iraq should be subject to UCMJ..

According to US Code, Chapter 10, Section 805, persons in the following categories are subject to US military law.

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

"(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an
      armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United
      States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of
      international law, persons serving with, employed by, or
      accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and
      outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin
      Islands.
(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United
      States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of
      international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise
      reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is
      under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside
      the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
      Guam, and the Virgin Islands."

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

It will be argued that the "private armies" of US and other mercenary soldiers now in Iraq are not "accompanying" the US armed forces.  IMO, that definition is at the discretion of the US government.  Any "agreement" having been made by Bremer's CPA is subject to revision by the US government.

These mercenary soldiers may be indispensible, but they must be brought under control.  pl

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/ii/chapters/47/subchapters/i/sections/section_802.html

Blackwater and the Iraqis

""The necessary measures will be taken that will preserve the honor of the Iraqi people," he said in New York, where al-Maliki arrived Friday for the U.N. General Assembly session. "We have ongoing high-level meetings with the U.S. side about this issue."

Al-Maliki is expected to raise the issue with Bush during a meeting Monday in New York.

It is doubtful that foreign security contractors could be prosecuted under Iraqi law. A directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004 granted contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Security contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law under which U.S. troopers face prosecution for killing or abusing Iraqis.

Iraqi officials have said in the wake of the Nisoor Square shooting that they will press for amendments to the 2004 directive.

A senior aide to al-Maliki said Friday that three of the Blackwater guards were Iraqis and could be subject to prosecution. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Shortly after the Sept. 16 shooting, U.S. officials said they "understood" that there was videotape, but refused to give more details. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to release information to the media.

Following the Nisoor Square shooting, the Interior Ministry banned Blackwater from operating in Iraq but rolled back after the U.S. agreed to a joint investigation. The company resumed guarding a reduced number of U.S. convoys on Friday.

The al-Maliki aide said Friday that the Iraqis were pushing for an apology, compensation for victims or their families and for the guards involved in the shooting to be held "accountable."

Hadi al-Amri, a prominent Shiite lawmaker and al-Maliki ally, also said an admission of wrongdoing, an apology and compensation offered a way out of the dilemma.

"They are always frightened and that's why they shoot at civilians," al-Amri said. "If Blackwater gets to stay in Iraq, it will have to give guarantees about its conduct.""  AP

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

Perhaps I was a little hasty in my comment about how the Iraqi government would be viewed by its people and neighbors.

In the Arab way of doing things, the kinds of redress of grievance that are mentioed would be very helpful in resolving this situation.

The Iraqi Blackwater employees will pay for this one way or another.

These mercenaries are accompanying a US force in the field, and IMO should be subject to the UCMJ.

"They are always frightened and that's why they shoot at civilians"  That is probably true.  My, my.  A little adult leadership and a few floggings (just kidding) would improve morale in that outfit.

No one seems to have notices that in my previous post, the picture shows Blackwater in New Orleans.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Who runs Iraq, us or "them?"

"Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said the Moyock, N.C.-based company has been implicated in six other incidents over the past seven months, including a Feb. 7 shooting outside Iraqi state television in Baghdad in which three building guards were fatally shot.

Khalaf said other incidents include: a Sept. 9 shooting in front of Baghdad's municipal government building that killed five people and wounded 10; a Sept. 12 shooting that wounded five on the capital's Palestine Street; a Feb. 4 shooting near the Foreign Ministry, in which Iraqi journalist Hana al-Ameedi died; a May shooting near the Interior Ministry that claimed the life of a passer-by and a Feb. 14 incident in which Blackwater employees allegedly smashed windshields by throwing bottles of ice water at cars.

"These six cases will support the case against Blackwater, because they show that it has a criminal record," Khalaf told The Associated Press."  Bushra Juhi - API

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

"by throwing bottles of ice water at cars"  In the Army, they would be tried under UCMJ for this alone.  Childish. Malicious nonsense.  This is what happens when an organization with guns, training and no responsible chain of command runs amok.

Someone will say that "someone" did worse in Vietnam.  Well, if that is so, they did not do it around me.

Khalaf is the Ministry of the Interior's spokesman.

The resumption of State Department use of Blackwater protection answers the question as to whether or not there is any reality to the sovereignty of the Iraqi government.  Maliki declared Blackwater's business license to be suspended and ordered the company out of Iraq.  The US Government has defied that decision.  The egregious Rice has now declared that the situation will be reviewed.  What a joke.  Whatever credit the Iraqi government may have had in the Arab World is now finished. 

"Who is going to run this place, (Iraq) us or them?"  This question was foolishly asked this week by a popular American TV talk show host.  His question picked at the scab of underlying American attitudes toward Iraq.

So much for purple fingers.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

I changed the picture on this post because the other one had been altered in some way.  pl

Hadley blocked access on Syria photos.

"North Korea may be cooperating with Syria on some sort of nuclear facility in Syria, according to new intelligence the United States has gathered over the past six months, sources said. The evidence, said to come primarily from Israel, includes dramatic satellite imagery that led some U.S. officials to believe that the facility could be used to produce material for nuclear weapons.

The new information, particularly images received in the past 30 days, has been restricted to a few senior officials under the instructions of national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, leaving many in the intelligence community unaware of it or uncertain of its significance, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Some cautioned that initial reports of suspicious activity are frequently reevaluated over time and were skeptical that North Korea and Syria, which have cooperated on missile technology, would have a joint venture in the nuclear arena."  Kessler

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

I missed this when it first appeared.  So, the imagery primarily came from Israel and Hadley blocked access to it from US Intelligence Community analysts and imagery interpreters?  Why would that be?  How about this?  The Israelis wanted it to be that way and it was their information. 

I will let that thought hang in the air for comment.  Remember UHTTFY!  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202430.html?sub=AR

Israel's Syrian Strike

"After Israel shared its intelligence with the Bush administration in recent months, which included satellite imagery, the United States provided Israel with some confirmation of the original information before Israel went ahead with the night air raid on September 6, the Post reported.

The quality of the Israeli intelligence, the nature of North Korea's assistance and the seriousness of Syria's atomic activities remained uncertain, the Post wrote."  AFP

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

I have been thinking this over and I see three possibilities:

1- North Korea and Syria really were dumb enough to do this out in the desert where there are hardly any activities that would "cover" the construction and operation of some sort of nuclear storage or manufacturing facility.  I know for a fact that the Syrians are extremely wary of US information collection capabilities and now are equally aware that the Israelis also have similar capabilities.  The chance that this activity would be "missed" was virtually nil.  But, Syria has done a lot of dumb things in the past.

2 - This strike; the secrecy mumbo-jumbo, the Bush cuteness at the press conference, and the "naughtiness" of Bibi may all be part of an elaborate propaganda campaign.  Some propagandist will say that I am a "conspiracy theorist."  Nevertheless, governments do these things.  Objective?  Syria for the Israelis and Iran for us.

3- Israeli civilian and military intelligence may just have screwed up the intelligence analysis on this.  Let's see, how could this have happened?  - Someone in Syria sees a few North Koreans, - Someone on the telephone in Damascus implies that the North Koreans are there to do some thing "spooky." -  Some other source indicates that the North Koreans in Syria are doing something in northern Syria, -  A ship sails from North Korea to a Syrian port, - Reconnaissance photos show some interesting construction work or other activity at the site later bombed.   This is briefed to the cabinet who are "deeply troubled" at the implications.  It is then briefed to the Americans who look at their own even better snapshots.  They White House is then told that "it" is possible.  Ah Hah!

That could not happen?  You need to read up on how the Iraqi "purchasing mission" to Niger was manufactured out of rumor, spit and a desired outcome.

Which is it?  Beats me!  I need more data.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070921/pl_afp/mideastusisraelsyriankoreaintelligence

Iran- Whose "existential" threat?

This is the estimated range "fan" for the Iranian Shihab - 3 missile.  pl

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

"The scale of the US miscalculation is striking. Before the Iraq war began, its neo-conservative architects argued that conferring power on Iraq's Shi'ites would serve to undermine Iran because Iraq's Shi'ites, controlling the faith's two holiest cities, would, in the words of then deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, be "an independent source of authority for the Shi'ite religion emerging in a country that is democratic and pro-Western". Further, they argued, Iran could never dominate Iraq, because the Iraqi Shi'ites are Arabs and the Iranian Shi'ites Persian. It was a theory that, unfortunately, had no connection to reality.

Iran's bond with the Iraqi Shi'ites goes far beyond the support Iran gave Shi'ite leaders in their struggle with Saddam. Decades of oppression have made their religious identity more important to Iraqi Shi'ites than their Arab ethnic identity. (Also, many Iraqi Shi'ites have Turkoman, Persian or Kurdish ancestors.) While Sunnis identify with the Arab world, Iraqi Shi'ites identify with the Shi'ite world, and for many this means Iran."  Peer Galbraith

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

Galbraith's article on Iran was originally published in the New York Review of Books and then here in the Asia Times.  It is so important that it is worth reproducing here for discussion.

There is much that could be argued with in the aricle, but, in the main it seems to capture the situation well.

IMO, the US has refused to accept the idea of sharing power in the Middle East with the Iranians.  That lies at the heart of our problem with them.  All other issues are more symptom than anything else.  As Galbraith observes we have ignored efforts on their part to draw us into a serious discussion of what are really bi-lateral issues.

We talk about Iran being a strategic threat (life-threatening to the nation) to the United States.  This is nonsense.  Unless the Shihab series of guided missile developments results in an ICBM with a six-thousand mile range fitted with warheads of city destroying yields, Iran will never be an existential threat to the US.

If it were not for the undeniable fact that an Iran equipped with their present Shihab 3 and nuclear warheads would be an existential threat to Israel, our concern over their future nuclear weapons would be no greater than our present concern over Pakistan's weapons.  pl

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II20Ak07.html 

What will be Bush's Decision on Iran?

"One member of Cheney's national security staff, David Wurmser, worried out loud that Cheney felt that his wing was "losing the policy argument on Iran" inside the administration -- and that they might need to "end run" the president with scenarios that may narrow his choices. The option that Wurmser allegedly discussed was nudging Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran, thus "hopefully" prompting a military reaction by Tehran against U.S. forces in Iraq and the Gulf. When queried about Wurmser's alleged comments, a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times, "The vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff." "  Steve Clemons

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

We seem to have returned to 2002.  In that year, it was fashionable and easy to decry the idea that the Bush Administration could be so foolish as to invade Iraq.  Those who said that we would invade Iraq were thought to be a little daft.  A radio station in Boise, Idaho that had asked my opinion about this began to ridicule the idea on the air after I insisted that an invasion was likely.  Now we have Steve Clemons doing much the same thing.

A decision to attack Iran would be just that.  Only the president can make such a decision.  Once he makes that decision, nothing could prevent war.  There is not a constitutional or legal way to prevent him from ordering whatever size attack he wants.  He, the slavish Congress and the Jacobin neocons structured various pieces of post 9/11 legislation in such a way that he already has all the authority needed to give the orders.

Clemons' discussion of the ongoing argument within policy circles over whether or not Bush will give that order is reasonably accurate.

It is also irrelevant.  Only the decider will decide.  He will decide with the help and advice of his pal, "just plain Dick," and after the "Italian Letter" crowd have done their worst.

I learned recently that Dick, when fishing in his native mountains, has the guides herd the fish towards him "just to make sure."

It seems to me that that a 2003 outcome is likely, but, you never know....  pl

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/19/iran/

Alexis Debat, Noted Scholar (and fraud)

"The credulity of the first feeds the next one. "We relied on ABC News for his credentials", says Anne Bell, publicist of the Jim Lehrer Newshour on PBS, where Debat appeared, depending on the news, as an expert on terrorism or the French riots. "Brian Ross and the Nixon Center… These are pretty credentials, they carry some weight… ," a member of the military told us. "You won't believe the list of the people who attended his briefing"

At 35, Alexis Debat was pretty successful. He had a respectable position in a well-regarded think tank, he was a regular face on television, he was quoted in newspapers… why did he need to keep fabricating interviews in a French journal with a limited circulation? This is another mystery of this stunning story.

When Debat was hired by the Nixon Center on May 22nd 2006, the press release of the conservative think tanks proudly announced the arrival of a "creative and insightful analyst". They could not have found better words to describe their new recruit."  Rue 89

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

Washington is a city overflowing with fakes, phonies and "fourflushers."  This character has been circulating inside the beltway for several years.  I met him a couple of times at the Nixon Center when there for their lunch seminars.  I must admit that his presence on their staff made the place less appealing.

People are easily impressed by cultured accents (especially European), supposed credentials, fancy suits, shoes and a self-assured manner.  All those who were easily taken in by this charlatan should think about how shallow their judgment was.

Does anyone know what this man actually was in Europe?  pl

Click here: How Alexis Debat managed to cheat everyone in Washington | Rue89

Clinton says that America will be back!

Appearing Sunday at a mini-Democratic convention of sorts in a field, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that if she is elected she will not wait until her inauguration to begin acting as president.

Clinton said that, the day after winning election, she would select envoys to "travel around the world with a very simple message: The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."

"America is back," she said.  WAPO

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

And not a moment to lose!  If she wins, let us hope to see people like Richard Holbrooke, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, and Robert Rubin on her team.  The last years have seen the destruction of America's hard won position as a moral leader in the world.  For the good of all, this wreckage much be salvaged and re-built.

In the field of health care, her approach seemd to be to require people to have health insurance and to create government subsidies for those who can not afford it.  Recent experience in my family of massive health care costs have sharpened my awareness of the severity of the devastation wrought on people wthout means by our present lack of system in the provision of health care.  Most Americans now accept that idea.  This is no longer 1994 and Senator Clinton's position is not the one she favored then.  The time has come in the United States to take up the responsibility for a system of national health care.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601486.html?hpid=topnews

Fouad Ajami, an Eloquent Weathervane

"We liberated the Anbar, we defeated al Qaeda by denying it religious cover," Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Reisha said with a touch of pride and impatience. This was the dashing tribal leader who emerged as the face of the new Sunni accommodation with American power, and who was assassinated by al Qaeda last week. I had not been ready for his youth (born in 1971), nor for his flamboyance. Sir David Lean, the legendary director of "Lawrence of Arabia," would have savored encountering this man. There was style, and an awareness of it, in Abu Reisha: his brown abaya bordered with gold thread, a neat white dishdasha, and a matching headdress. "Our American friends had not understood us when they came, they were proud, stubborn people and so were we. They worked with the opportunists, now they have turned to the tribes, and this is as it should be. The tribes hate religious parties and religious fakers."

We were in Baghdad, and the sheikh gave me his narrative. There was both candor and evasion in the story he told. Al Qaeda and its Arab jihadists had found sanctuary and support in the Anbar; they had recruited the "criminal elements" and the "lowly," they had brought zeal and bigotry unknown to the Iraqis. Initially welcomed, they began to impose their own tyranny. They declared haram (impermissible) the normal range of social life. They banned cigarettes, they married the daughters of decent families without the permission of their elders. They violated the great code of decent society by "shedding the blood of travelers on routine voyages." The prayer leaders of mosques were bullied, then murdered.

Abu Reisha and a small group of like-minded men, he said, came together to challenge al Qaeda. "We fought with our own weapons. I myself fought al Qaeda with my own funds. The Americans were slow to understand our sahwa, our awakening. But they have come around of late. The Americans are innocent; they don't know Iraq. But all this is in the past, and now the Americans have a wise and able military commander on the scene, and the people of the Anbar have found their way. In the Anbar, they now know that the menace comes from Iran, not from the Americans.""  Fouad Ajami

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

Ajami is a Lebanese Shia by birth.  He is an American by adoption and naturalization, and a great scholar.  He has "blown" hot and cold on the neocon vision for his native region of the world, seemingly, this has depended on whether or not the "temperature" of the moment favored the neocon Jacobins.  In other word he has been something of an opportunist.

Nevertheless, this is a good article.  It accurately portrays the origins of the Sahwa al Anbar.  Petraeus told the Congress that the revolt was a "political phenomenon" which the US eventually had the wit to sponsor.  This "awakening" is now spreading not only to less specifically tribal parts of Sunni Iraq but also to the Shia tribes in the southwestern deserts.  A lot of these tribes extend across the Shia/Sunni barrier.  This is a factor. Another is the simple fact that the Jeish al-Mahdi and other Shia zealot groups are acting towards the Shia tribes in much the same way that Al-Qa'ida acts toward the Sunni tribes of Anbar and other regions. 

Is Ajami's article a valid argument for a long term American military presence in Iraq?  I think not.  For the ongoing and still somewhat tentative process of tribal and conservative Muslim elimination of extremist movements to flower and continue to a logical conclusion, there must be belief in the collective Iraqi mind that the Ajanib (us) are definitely going to leave, be gone, and not remain as neo-colonialists in their country.

If that happens then, a new balance in Iraq on some realistic basis of relative strength (armed) will emerge and there is some hope that the state of Iraq will be preserved.  Will that state be unitary or federal in fact?  It is not possible just yet to see that far into "the undiscovered country" of the future.  You must wait to know the future of Iraq.

Nevertheless, to arrive in that undiscovered country with some chance of saving the situation, a declared policy of gradual withdrawal such as on the basis of  "An Iraq Program" (below) is a pre-requisite.  pl

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010610 

Availability Statement (Press Release)

In response to popular demand (Montag, Walrus and ..?) I wish to say that if nominated by acclaim on the SST ticket, I will adopt a McClellan like stance of restrained pomposity and await the verdict of the states.  He got 44.95% of the popular vote without ever making a speech.  Hmmm.  Platform to follow.  pl

I have corrected the number on Mac's share of the popular vote after receiving the counsel of a friend.  I had not realized that he actually won three states.  I think that "The Young Napoleon" might have won if Early had been victorious at Cedar Creek and Sherman had not captured Atlanta before the general election.  In spite of his statements to the contrary I think he would have eventually made some sort of arrangement with the Confederate States that would have made permanent something less than Lincoln's war aims.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

An Iraq Program

I sat through the president's address on Iraq last night as well as the commentary that both followed and preceded it.  The commentary was of surprisingly high quality with Christopher Matthews making a reasoned appeal to the public to see that Petraeus believes his role as commander in Iraq to be that of executor of national policy, not the originator of national policy.  This is a realistic view of the proper role of the military.  People who want Petraeus to demand change in national policy should think that over carefully.  Keith Olberman seemed unhappy with such reasoning.  His commentary lately has degenerated into demagoguery.  He is more and more like O'Reilly, the man who made him rich and who he professes to despise.

After listening to the president I think that those in Congress and among the presidential candidates who oppose the Jacobin neocon view of America's destiny in the Middle East should adopt something like the following program:

- There should be no treaty, agreement, SOFA or any other instrument that commits the United States to the defense of Iraq.  The Congress should insist on its prerogative in such matters.  Agreements of that kind would preclude a complete American withdrawal from Iraq.

- There should be no permanent American bases of any kind in Iraq.  The president's obduracy in insisting on what can only be seen as a commitment to a permanent American presence makes the public adoption of a policy of "no bases" inevitable.  Permanent bases in Iraq will mean conventional or counterinsurgency war involving the US so long as the bases are there.

- Congress should insist that the "surge" force be completely withdrawn on the basis that Petraeus recommended and that the March, 2008 review should produce a schedule of withdrawal that will remove all US combat forces from Iraq by the mid-term election of 2010 with the following exception.

- Congress and the candidates should have in mind  that if there remains any relationship to an Iraqi state after 2010, that relationship may require an ongoing training commitment to the forces of that government. Such a force of trainers will inevitably have to be fed, housed, transported, provided medical support and protected.  A commitment of that kind would require a continuing presence for a few years, but the end point should be fixed.  For the length of its existence such a presence might well consist of 30,000 people.  On the other hand, if there is no continuing relationship, than all forces should be withdrawn by November, 2010.

- None of this should be seen as precluding a continuing effort at counter-terrorist operations or support of friendly elements in Iraq from outside Iraq.

- This program of withdrawal should be matched with a determined, aggressive diplomatic effort intended to reduce the "temperature" in the Middle East.  (See my article "Toward a Concert of the Middle East."

There wil be tose who will say that having such a program is futile because of Bus.Cheney.  I disagree.  Without a program you have no unified goal and path.

Those who submit comments which are merely anti-Ameican or naively pacifist will have them deleted.  pl

Download a_concert_of_the_greater_middle_east.pdf

Calhoun on 3-D Chess

"There are so many questions, many pointing to paradoxes and contradictions, that the thing that mitigates my own thinking for myself is a kind of drowning feeling. Nevertheless. It seems to me our strategy should be well informed and liberated from ignorant prejudices. I know there is a lot of brain power being applied. Still, my inchoate thought is that it seems it is not fully integrated that the codes and protocols and strategems of the tribes invoke deal-making, figuring who's buttering your bread, planning for that bread to disappear, (etc.,) and, these do not end up reinforcing a satisfying (to us) Western-style *stable* bureaucracy-driven governance. Groping for a metaphor about this I conjur a combination of 3 dimensional chess and a drinking game where our side is less experienced. At chess."  SC

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

Some of you will have heard by now that Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha , the leader of the Anbar anti AQ front has been assasinated.  Add another layer to the game.  pl

Anbar Conundrum - Charles I

"Jonst re: "I have not, and do not, understand the, apparent, strategic contradictions present in the 'Anbar model'. It has to, so it seems to me, weaken the Shia position. What benefit they get from seeing their new tormentors hunted and killed by their old tormentors, has to be diminished, (wiped out?)by seeing the occupying forces aligning with said old tormentor. This, in turn, will push the Shia closer to Iran. I believe Pat has addressed this with this proposition. ONLY when the Sunni's are strong enough in all regards that a Shia dominated government accepts it MUST somehow accord the Sunni minority legitimate political, legal, social, security and economic space if the Shia are to secure any of their own, will the Sunni's "have someone to negotiate with", to mangle a metaphorical Israeli roadblock. Its an age old equation. The minority too weak to rule or secede yet too numerous, powerful or handy to exterminate, defeat or suppress must be accommodated.

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

That expresses my point very well.  Much of my writing here is intended to challenge the intellect and to stimulate thought.  I try not to be so specific as to impede that process.  As Brian said, "You have to think for yourselves."  pl

Advice for the Democratic Party

Today I heard Senator Christopher Dodd say that the US should begin to withdraw its forces next month at the rate of two and a half brigades a month, drawing down to a level of zero troops by some date next year (do the arithmetic).  Speaker Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid made similar statements reflecting similar views today. 

Some blognik remarked today that it was "interesting" that I have listened to Petraeus sympathetically.  He found that curious because, in his words, "Lang has been a staunch opponent of this war."  It is true that I thought and think that the Iraq war was "sold" to the American people in a propaganda driven systematic campaign of lies and exaggeration by the Bush Administration driven by lunatic nationalists and people of ambiguous loyalty to this country.  I also think that the "kinetic" generals, often men and women of limited imagination and little real ability did a blind and terribly inept job of running the war.  Often they seemed more concerned with self, career and the perquisites of rank than anything else.

Nevertheless, we are stuck on the flypaper of Iraq.  In my opinion a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, abandoning the protean mess that is the Iraqi government would result in such a disastrous situation that we can not afford to do that.

Some of the consequences?

- A rump state of Iraq in the south in which whichever Shia faction wins will become a satellite of the Iranian government.  That government, if not dealt with through a prolonged and aggressive combination of diplomacy and potential military force will continue to act as a major sponsor of Islamic zealot movements and their terrorist manifestations.  Iran will also take up a major role as arbiter of alignments and activity in the region.

- Kurdistan will become one of the saddest of experiments in national popular sovereignty that I know of.  Would Turkey and Iran continue to tolerate the Kurdish aspiration to achieving something as close to independence as they can manage?  I doubt it.

- Would the wide variety of Sunni Arab groups that are revolting against the takfiri jihadis coalesce into a integrated part of a renewed Iraq?  Probably not, and among all the little de facto city states, sheikhdoms, etc, the surreptitious support and participation of the Sunni "neighbors" would continue.   This means continued war indefinitely in Sunnistan.

- Would the jihadis find a way to re-establish themselves somewhere in Sunnistan?  Probably.

What does that add up to in terms of the ultimate political effect of the war on the Democratic Party?

I predict that If you are seen to be the instruments of such a collapse, then you will be blamed for a catastrophe in which thousands of American soldiers will have died.  The public will wrongly think that they died for nothing.  The public will not blame Bush, Cheney, the AEI crowd.  No.  They will blame you.  You will carry that can for many years.

Petraeus recommends a gradual withdrawal from this disaster.  You don't want that?  Have you really thought this through?

If you want to do something useful, pass resolutions tying up the president's freedom of action in regard to Iran.  Make him come to you for permission to strike them.  Show some real courage.  pl

Petraeus and Crocker - Interesting

Today's joint testimony before the house of representatives was more interesting than I had expected.  There were a number of things to be heard if one listened closely.

Petraeus:

- General Casey requested the increase in forces that people have called "the surge" and for which Petraeus is generally thought to be responsible.  Bush announced the increase in forces in January, 2007.  Petraeus assumed command in February, 2007

- Petraeus did not try to claim that the tribal revolt in Anbar, now spreading in the country wherever Sunni Arabs live in numbers, was the result of his policy.  His COIN adviser David Killcullen recently wrote that the tribal revolt was not anticipated by the US command in Baghdad, was not caused by it and was a "surprise."  What Petraeus did claim, fairly I think, is that he and his team have perceived the usefulness of this phenomenon and are helping to spread it wherever they can while at the same time trying to integrate these forces into government structures.  Petraeus also maintained that the US is not arming the tribes because there is no need to arm the tribes.  What is happening is that US forces are now welcoming those who wish to change sides in defense of their "turf" and way of life. 

- If Casey requested the additional troops and the tribal revolt was caused by factors beyond his control, then what is left as Petraeus creative contribution is his campaign to protect the population of the Baghdad area by garrisoning the city with a myriad of little forts.  That, in itself, may be enough to justify his reputation.  To be fair, he seems to be an excellnt strategic thinker, and the man can really speak English. (unusual)

- Rep. Duncan Hunter suggested that the former Iraqi Army could not have been used for anything under a new government.  Petraeus did not accept that and reiterated the idea that a shortage of well trained and experienced officers at field grade level remains one of the new army's biggest problem, and that the Maliki government is trying to induce the return to the colors of suitable "old Army." officers.

-Petraeus insisted that he and Admiral Fallon, his immediate commander, have no disagreements concerning policy in Iraq. 

-Petraeus insisted that his testimony had not been "vetted" by the Bush Administration.

-Petraeus said that Iranian "Quds" force cadres and Hizbullah trainers "borrowed" by Iran have left Iraq. 

-Most importantly, Petraeus said that he has recommended, through Fallon to Gates, that all of the "surge" troops be withdrawn gradually between now and July, 2008 with a further review in March, 2008 of how to continue the withdrawal after July.  Some will say that this is deceptive because these troop will have to be withdrawn anyway.  I think not.  He could easily have conditioned the withdrawal in many ways, but there was little of that.

Crocker:

- He showed little taste for negotiating with the Iranians.  Crocker has always liked to talk tough about negotiating with anyone.  He seems to fear the "diplomatie au petit fours" image.  Perhaps that is why Petraeus mentioned the Quds Force withdrawal.

All in all, an encouraging performance in a limited sort of way.  Now, if we knew what the commander guy and ole Dick intend to do about Iran, we would really know something.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10cnd-policy.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

"Dead Certain" a review by Richard Wolffe

"Draper emerges with a treasure trove of detail and anecdotes, but he often doesn't delve -- or isn't allowed to delve -- into the deeper questions. Early in his book Dead Certain, he tells the story of Bush's failed bid for Congress in 1978. Against all the best advice, Bush decided to run against a conservative West Texas Democrat, Kent Hance. He lost badly, but not embarrassingly. Explaining his decision to Draper, he said, "You can't learn lessons by reading. Or at least I couldn't. I learned by doing. I knew it was an uphill struggle. But see, I've never had a fear of losing. I didn't like to lose. But having parents who give you unconditional love, I think it means I had the peace of mind to know that even with failure, there was love."  Wolffe reviewing "Dead Certain."

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

Wolffe is a very clever man.  He and Olberman "play" well together.  Wolffe remains essentially European in his manifested attitudes.  His casual dismissal of the behaviour of Royal Navy and Royal Marine people in Iranian captivity as "meaningless" had much about it that most Americans would not approve.  We would not tolerate that behavior in our forces.

Nevertheless, his review of this book points to a couple of interestin' thangs about Dubya.

Bush's insistence that he reads a lot and his statement that one can not learn from reading are mutually exclusive, I think.  I am reliant on a few things the Army taught me.  One of these was the Myers-Briggs personality indicator classification system.  This system has been useful to me in understanding people I meet and work with.  Dubya hates tests like that and also hates talk about it.  That is a typical reaction of several of the grous classified under the test.

I don't think he is lying in the ridiculous statement about "learning."  I think that he is (in MB terms) A "Sensory-Perceptive" (SP) type.  This groups typically does not learn much by reading and is quite capable of holding two mutually exclusive views at the same time.  About 50% of the American public belong to this broad group.  Look it up.

Then there is the matter of "unconditional love."  There is very little of that in the world.  Rational beings may SAY that they love without condition, but it is not usually true.  I suppose there are parents who will love a child who is a sadistic child molester and murderer, but they must be few.  In fact, only dogs love unconditionally, at least until they meet Michael Vick.

That kind of statement from Bush reveals how much he needs to be loved.  that probably points to something less than "unconditional love" in his past.  Perhaps that is why he needs to surround himself with adoring women.

This "biography" of Bush reinforces my belief that he will never, never, never give up in Iraq.  Never.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602376.html

There ought to  be a lot of room in this post for enraged comment by loving parents and defenders of Her Majesty' Forces.

A New Campaign Against the IAEA

"Diplomats accredited to the IAEA say ElBaradei is under U.S. pressure over a recent IAEA-Iran working plan committing Tehran to fully clear up its past nuclear activities by year's end.

"We have a timeline which would enable us by ... December to check clearly whether Iran is ready to work with us in good faith or whether (as) some like to suspect, Iran is buying time," ElBaradei said.

"This is a reasonable time in our view to resolve a number of complex issues," he added.

The U.S. has suggested that Iran was using the work plan as a smoke screen while continuing uranium enrichment despite a Security Council ban.

Washington and its closest allies called for new sanctions as recently as July 30, when the IAEA reported "significant" progress in clearing up past questions about Iran while at the same time confirming that Tehran was expanding its enrichment program.

"For the last few years, we have been told by the Security Council ... that we needed to clarify the outstanding issues," ElBaradei said. "We obviously had to welcome" Tehran's decision to cooperate with the agency."

In the IAEA-Iran working plan agreed in July, Iran agreed to answer questions from agency experts by December on more than two decades of nuclear activity - most of it secret until revealed over four years ago.

The plan, which was made public last month, appeared to give Iran a clean bill of health on past small-scale plutonium experiments that could be linked to a weapons program. The IAEA said Tehran had accounted for amounts that of the substance originally appeared to have been missing."  Forbes

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

As ElBaradei has observed the present gathering campaign against the credibility of the IAEA by the flatheads and Bushies is remarkably reminiscent of the way the same people treated Baradei and the IAEA before the '03 intervention in Iraq.

Then, as now, ElBaradei's character and integrity were assailed and the effectiveness of his agency's efforts in controlling nuclear proliferation were ridiculed.   It was insisted that nothing the Iraqis said or wrote could possible be true and the implication was clear that diplomacy could never be the solution to anything in dealing with them.

The occupation of Iraq and a persistent search of the country by literally thousands of US government people failed to find anything of "WMD" except a few corroded gas shells from the Iraq-Iran War.  So - ElBaradei was right all along.   He was completely correct.

No matter.  I know Americans who should know better who persist in believing that Saddam's government had a vast stockpile of gas, biological and nuclear materials.

Where are they?  The story I keep getting from these "believers" is that the materials are in the bottom of a lake, in Syria, etc.  The complete lack of evidence has no effect whatever on the quality and intensity of belief.

Much the same propaganda campaign is "cranking up" now.  I see no reason to think that this iteration of the same effort will not be equally successful.  pl

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/07/ap4094048.html

My article "Drinking the Kool Aid" discussed the IAEA phenomenon in the Iraq context.

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp

"The Iraq Tribal Study, June 2006" is available on "The Athenaeum."

This is the work that Walter Pincus mentioned a week or so ago in the Washington Post.  pl

Krauthammer finally explains our Iraq policy

The good doctor has done us a favor.  In this oped inserted in the Post by his Flatheadian comrade (what an unfortunate word!), Frad Hiatt, he has finally explained to us in clear language what it is that "they" meant to do in Iraq.  It did not "pan out" and so now "they" (and we) and the Iraqis will have to settle for mere reality.  Dommage!  (That's french for Shucks!)

This must be very painful.  The shattering of adolescent (read academic) dreams is always shattering.  But, not to worry, there are always new worlds to conquer, new air strikes for other people to fly, more... Poor flatheads.  It must be a terrible thing to have been mugged by several thousand years of history.

Surely not that, not history!  That's all in the past.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602270_2.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/05/hiatt_ledeen/index.html

A "Palaver" of Flatheads?

I am much taken with the neologism "flathead" coined here among us. 
Such a word deserves a plural in the spirit of an "exaltation" of larks or a "murder" of crows.

Nominations are open.

The Indian gentleman is from the Salish nation, sometimes known as the "flatheads."  This conceit has nothing to do with this Indian people.  (First Nation in Canada) pl

"Prediction Validated - China and the Dollar" The National Interest

"Last year, in laying out various scenarios for how the United States might choose to confront Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons program ("Contemplating the Ifs", The National Interest, Summer 2006), W. Patrick Lang and Larry C. Johnson noted that U.S. planners have to consider factors far beyond developments in the Persian Gulf.

One point they raised:

[China] hold[s] a substantial amount of U.S. debt. What happens if they decide to find some other currency to hold instead of the dollar? . . . Although the dollar traditionally has been the currency people seek during a crisis, the growing imbalance with China creates new dynamics that could convince the Chinese that holding dollars no longer made economic sense. Under such a scenario, dumping dollars on the international market would trigger an inflationary spiral in the United States.

The scenario of an inflationary spike triggered by China's dumping of dollars may strike some as fanciful. The point for U.S. planners and policymakers, though, is to recognize that war brings unintended consequences that go well beyond the tactical realities on the ground where the fighting occurs.

In other words, the United States needs to consider what happens if China uses its financial leverage to affect U.S. freedom of action.

The Daily Telegraph is now reporting:

A sharp drop in foreign holdings of US Treasury bonds over the last five weeks has raised concerns that China is quietly withdrawing its funds from the United States, leaving the dollar increasingly vulnerable. . . .

David Powell, an economist at IDEAglobal in New York, pointed the finger at Beijing as the main suspect in the sudden bond flight this summer.

In a client note entitled "Has China started to dump US Treasuries?", he said the sales appear to coincide with early moves by Beijing to launch its new $300bn sovereign wealth fund.

The scheme is part of the government's plan to diversify it $1,340bn reserves from bonds (mostly in the US) to a broader portfolio of investments and a better yield."  TNI

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15458

“building a ladder of tribes to the objective” Killcullen/Lawrence

"The other implication is that, to be perfectly honest, the pattern we are seeing runs somewhat counter to what we expected in the “surge”, and therefore lies well outside the “benchmarks”. The original concept was that we (the Coalition and the Iraqi government) would create security, which would in turn create space for a “grand bargain” at the national level. Instead, we are seeing the exact opposite: a series of local political deals has displaced extremists, resulting in a major improvement in security at the local level, and the national government is jumping on board with the program. Instead of coalition-led top-down reconciliation, this is Iraqi-led, bottom-up, based on civil society rather than national politics. And oddly enough, it seems to be working so far. This does not necessarily invalidate the “surge” strategy: we are indeed seeing improved security and political progress, but at the local not national level. This was not what we expected, and probably will cut little ice with domestic opponents of the strategy, but the improvement in daily lives of Iraqis and willingness to talk rather than fight is a substantial real-world improvement nonetheless.

Tentative Conclusions

As we all know, there is no such thing as a “standard” counterinsurgency. Indeed, the basic definition of counterinsurgency is “the full range of measures that a government and its partners take to defeat an insurgency”. In other words, the set of counterinsurgency measures adopted depends on the character of the insurgency: the nature of counterinsurgency is not fixed, but shifting; it evolves in response to changes in the form of insurgency. This means that there is no standard set of metrics, benchmarks or operational techniques that apply to all insurgencies, or remain valid for any single insurgency throughout its life-cycle. And there are no fixed “laws” of counterinsurgency, except for the sole simple but difficult requirement to first understand the environment, then diagnose the problem, in detail and in its own terms, then build a tailored set of situation-specific techniques to deal with it.

With that in mind, it is clear that although the requirements for counterinsurgency in a tribal environment may not be written down in the classical-era field manuals, building local allies and forging partnerships and trusted networks with at-risk communities seems to be one of the keys to success – perhaps this is what T.E. Lawrence had in mind when he wrote that the art of guerrilla warfare with Arab tribes rests on “building a ladder of tribes to the objective”. Many excellent recent posts and discussions here at the Small Wars Journal have explored these issues. Marine and Army units that have sought to understand tribal behavior in its own terms, to follow norms of proper behavior as expected by tribal communities, and to build their own confederations of local partners, have done extremely well in this fight. But we should remember that this uprising against extremism belongs to the Iraqi people, not to us – it was their idea, they started it, they are leading it, it is happening on their terms and on their timeline, and our job is to support where needed, ensure proper political safeguards and human rights standards are in place, but ultimately to realize that this will play out in ways that may be good or bad, but are fundamentally unpredictable. So far so good, though…."  Kilcullen in SWJ

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/print/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/

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

You have to admire a man who can say that WE did not foresee this development "but, this is a good thing."

This all seem very familiar to me, but I will let that go for now except to say that there are more forces at work in Arabia than those under the commander guy's control.

Kilcullen points to the fact that this movement is building a new, possibly more stable balance of forces among the communities.

The Jacobins must be "turning and burning" over this frustration to their ambitions.

Unfortunately, the "kinetic" generals and the "flatheads" are interpreting this as they will while just plain Dick and the decider guy seem to have other plans only tangentially related to /Iraq's welfare.  pl

Friedman and Brooks- Inhabitants of a Flat Earth

By that I mean that they live in a specialized world of their own imagination in which the needs of; career, editorial boards, producers, and vapid news program hosts are the stuff of dreams come and gone.

Friedman wrote a book called "Flat Earth" (or something like that) in which he posited the idea that all of mankind is being ironed flat by the steamroller of globalization.  (metaphor - somewhat mixed).  In the Friedmanean dictum below he writes that the Arab sheikhs of Iraq are the answer. I am here to tell you folks that if there are people on earth who do not inhabit Friedman's "flat earth," they are Arab sheikhs.  they are the upholders of traditional and particularist life.  They are the guardians of 'urf (tribal law).  Those are the very characteristics that have made them rise in rebellon against Al-Qa'ida.  You think it was our money?  Yes, they like money?  They need money.  Their people need money.  How many of us do not like money?

Brooks?  He is one of the "most scholars," etc. whom he bashes in his piece.  I guess the wind has blown the other way now.

The New York Times pays these men to write this tripe?   pl

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html?th&emc=th

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/opinion/29friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

Who abolished the Iraqi Army?

President Bush is the Answer!  There has been some debate.   Now there should be none.  The man who was too good to serve in Vietnam knew that his Jacobin puppeteers and "just plain Dick" had decided to do this crazed thing, and he let them do it.

As Pace observes in the article, the Joint Chiefs were not asked their opinion about this in advance.  After all, "war is too important to be left to the soldiers..." (Clemenceau)  I know for a fact that US military leaders in Iraq were in the midst of talks with the Iraqis as to how prudently to bring a number of units "back to the colors,"  (that's a military thing) when told that these men were not to be spoken to any more.

There is an Afghan saying.. "All that is needed for true satisfaction is to wait by the side of the river until your enemy floats by.."   Life just keeps getting more and more satisfying. pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/washington/04bremer.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin 

Council of War

This picture is of the famous( to some) council of war that Meade held at Gettysburg.

I note that the president's travel party to Assad Air base in Anbar Province includes; Gates, Rice, Pace, Fallon, Lute, Hadley.  There, he will, of course, see Petraeus and Crocker as well.  Anyone else of note? Any AEIers? Sounds like a council of war to me.  Nice and isolated, minimal press interference and possibility of operational security planning breach.  Well thought out.  This will be a good place to get everyone "on board" and to coordinate tactics for the Petraeus/Crocker show to come.

If I were Maliki, I would not want to plan on a long coninuance in office.  He has been a great disppointment to the commander guy and "just plain Dick."  Rumor has it that Crocker's on site supervisor (the comely Megan) says that the Badr/ISCI guys are the hope of the future.  Since Maliki is the Secretary General of the Dawa Party, that might be inconvenient.  If he has a house somewhere he ought to look to its present state of habitability.  The Badr Brigades fellows were originally Iraqi Shia zealots who lived in Iran for 20+ years and who fought on the IRANIAN SIDE in the long Iran-Iraq War.  That makes their relations with the Iraqis (Shia and Sunni) who fought for Iraq a problem.  The Badrists have gained a large and ever growing role in the "Iraqi" (largely Shia) security forces.  These guys are being handed (by the British) whatever parts of Basra that the British were in.  Why?  They are the government forces.  They already have a side in the multi-dimensional internal Shia struggle for Basra, but, not to worry.  pl

CWZ on Train Travel

"My first comment here was meant to show that any marketing campaign by this administration hasn't penetrated to the "average Joe" yet. Plus, since my coworkers and I are working in DoD inside the Beltway, we tend to have a heightened awareness for any sign pointing towards military action. Granted, we're supporting strategic networks and don't notice when tactical systems start plugging into our networks - that's all done in the operations side of the house. Yes, there are problems with my barometer but I think it's important to remember that public support for this attack must come from average folks thinking it's a good idea. If my coworkers aren't even talking about it yet, how much more marketing penetration is required to get the American people to jump aboard? So, the decision may have been made by Bush to start softening up the American people and that train has left the station. But there is no guarantee this time that it will actually arrive at its destination. Here's why I think it won't make it: 1. The GOP congress-critters up for re-election aren't going to be happy with a "35-40%" support for a war. If some of the political analysis I'm reading is true, they are already very worried about how Bush's unpopularity and Iraq are going to hurt them in 2008. 2. The GOP rank and file is turning against Bush. They already see him as a liability. I'm watching die-hard Republicans turn against him. Sure, the neocons are still on the news channels' rolodexes, but I think that's more a sign of a broken news media that doesn't have the time to find new "experts" to fill their 24/7 schedule. 3. The Democratic Party's base will mobilize to challenge any Dem Congress-critter who does not fight Bush tooth and nail. So it just won't be the Republicans paying the price in 2008. There is a lot of talk in Lefty Blogosphere about mounting primary challenges to any Dem who does not oppose Bush's plans strong enough. 4. Finally, and probably most importantly, those old-timer GOPers from the Iraq Study Group who threw Bush a lifeline before the surge haven't gone into complete hibernation. I suspect they are exerting maximum pressure on Junior to stop the madness and get a grip on reality. Yeah, that's pure speculation on my part for whatever its worth. Bush may want to raise both his hands, give us all the middle fingers and sign the orders but that doesn't mean he will. It depends on Republicans caring more about their political survival than continuing their support for Bush. I think the majority of GOPers will put themselves and their careers first"  Cold War Zoomie

Has the train left the station?

""One thing that we agreed on is that the DPRK will provide a full declaration of all of their nuclear programs and will disable their nuclear programs by the end of this year, 2007," Hill told reporters, using the initials for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Hill said the declaration will also include uranium enrichment programs, which the United States fears could be used to make nuclear weapons."  Yahoo News

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

Most old North Korea hands have been of the opinion that the country was determined to build a war fighting capability with which to intimidate and dominate its neighbors.

A minority believed that this was not so and that the Korean program was largely designed as a bargaining chip in a larger diplomatic game.  Looks like the second group were correct.

This should be an lesson to those who insist that diplomatic means will not be effective in dealing with Iran.

It should be a lesson but it will not be a lesson.  The reason for that is that the lesson is not wanted.

In November or December of 2002, I took part in a town meeting in Lexington, Virginia on the subject of whether or not there would be war with Iraq.  General Zinni and the dean of VMI were the other panelists.  In that college town the audience was overwhelmingly anti-war.

At one point a panelist remarked that the discussion of this issue was enlightening but unproductive because on the issue, "the train had left the station."

I fear that a similar train has left the same station.  My estimated time of arrival is...

pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

John Warner, A Virginian's Virginian

To take his leave at the Rotunda on the campus of the University of Virginia, this was an inspired thought.

Senator Warner represented for most Virginians an ideal of what they should be.  Not everyone agrees with all his positions, but the character of the man is such that there are not many who will be happy with his departure.  I am lucky enough to possess a small store of anecdotes concerning him but I will keep those to myself in spite of the fact that all of the stories speak well of him.

He says that he will continue to serve.  I believe that.

What will happen now?

The Republican Party in Virginia has a sorry recent history of choosing candidates who in some way represent the aspirations of the national party but not the traditional preferences of the Republican electorate of the Old Dominion.  I expect that the national party and its operatives in Virginia will attempt to continue this tradition.

Accordingly I would think that the apparatchiks will want to see George Allen succeed Warner.  Allen is the national party's man.  Opposing him for the nomination will be Representative Tom Davis.  If the party nominates Davis, there will be a much more competitive contest for the senate.

The Democrats are going to run a former governor, Mark Warner or perhaps Gerald Baliles.

If I were a betting man (with money) I would look to see a Warner/Davis contest in '08.  pl

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=131573&ran=220999