Sic Semper Tyrannis

"Jackson Circle" Sidney O. Smith III

"Some at Sic Semper Tyrannis have asked about the successful rise of David Addington -- Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff and the leading apostle of the unitary executive theory. I’ll leave it to others to offer high octane legal insights, but Jane Mayer, in her excellent article “The Hidden Power”, goes into great detail when describing Addington’s approach. And, after reading her article, if someone asked me to choose one sentence to write on a chalkboard to sum up Addington and his weltanschauung, then I would offer the following: Addington doesn’t believe in the US Constitution.

What else does anyone really need to know? If you want an academic description, I suppose one could say that Addington’s intent to destroy the US Constitution is the source of his praxeology and thus drives all of his actions. One therefore can analyze his work based upon the assumption that he wants to decimate the US Constitution so as to create an imperial presidency. But, in simpler terms, this description of Addington simply sums up his "m.o.", or for those who believe he should face prosecution, his “mens rea”, that is, his “guilty state of mind”.

Of course, if you want to take it a step further and construct an argument against the views of Addington, then you must first decide the venue and audience. And because the tempo and motif of Sic Semper Tyrannis is one of The Butcher’s Cleaver and the Confederate Secret Services, I suggest tailoring such an argument with the specific intent of triggering a particular “collective memory” of anti-imperialism -- a collective memory long forgotten. By relying in part on the insight of Dr. Christine Helms that the "collective memory is a toolshed" that may lead to social change, the hope is that the revival of this specific collective memory will help end the days of Addington and Cheney as a political power. .."

Sidney O. Smith III

Download jackson_circle.pdf

Turkey, Syria and Israel?

This is very good news.  One can hear the string section warming up for the concert.  This must enrage many in the US and Israel.  Imagine the effrontery of the locals!  Taking things into their own hands like this!  Who do they think they are to do this?

The Syrians have been sold to the American people as altogether "black" in the usual Manichean construct.  How could Israel, land of milk and honey stain itself by making peace with these human devils?  Unthinkable!

Out there in Middle America (something like Middle Earth but with less cachet and more rust), there are going to be a lot of puzzled people if an Israeli-Syrian peace were to actually occur.

What about the purple thumbs?

Psst.  That was Iraq.

It was?  Oh well, one of those places.  pl

PS - Anything about this in the MSM?

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/turkey/8800883.asp?gid=231&sz=40500

People who can't shoot - anything.

For most of my life I have listened to people who "bitched" that they could not hit anything with the M1911A1 .45 caliber US automatic pistol.  I always shot "expert" with that gun.  So many people "bitched" about the .45 that the military got rid of it and replaced it at considerable expense with a fancy-dancy Italian designed Beretta 9 mm. I don't know, but I would bet that the same kind of people can't hit anything with that either.  Now, commercial manufacturers across the world are making all kinds of variants of the M1911A1 .45.  People who can shoot love them.  The picture, "Knocking out the Moros" is about the "birth" of the Army .45.

For most of my life I have listened to people "bitch" about the M16 rifle and now its lineal descendant the M4.  It's a "toy," it jams, it breaks, etc.  Guess what.  You have to clean it.  A soldier in combat who has not cleaned his rifle today is a slacker.  I always shot "expert" with the M16 also.

What's next? Laser rifles?  The same kind of people will "bitch" about them.  Some people just can't shoot and they are not all in the Air Force.

That reminds me.  I need to buy another gun just to make myself feel good.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042601753.html?tid=informbox

Syria, North Korea, Iran? What are US Intentions?

" Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."

Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.

Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.

In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat." "  Tyson in Wapo.

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

It is increasingly clear that Cheney and the War Party side of the Israeli establishment are pushing what is left of the Bush Administration toward a new war in the Middle East (oh, sorry, in MSM parlance "the Greater Middle East). 

Shoval, the former Israeli ambassador here, said the other day something to the effect that Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are the major sources of evil in the world.  My!  My! A clearer example of an inability to mentally separate one's own interests from those of others could hardly be found.

"Cheney and the Israelis." That will be the subject matter or title of some future piece of popularizing history.  Perhaps it will prove impossible to get it published.  What is the source of this affinity between Cheney and the Israeli Right?  He has his "1% solution."  They have their unwillingness to live with any sort of ambiguity in foreign relations or deterrence.  What is this "love affair" based on?

Unless the ground level pictures displayed around Washington were faked somehow, it is probable that Syria was building a reactor out on the Euphrates.  It seems that they were building it with help from North Korea.  The North Koreans usually do such things for money.  This was a foolish thing for both those countries to do.  Why?  It enables the propaganda of their enemies without providing any real benefit for themselves.

As David Albright has said; "One small reactor does not equal a nuclear weapons program."  Where is the refining plant for the by-products?  Where is the program for engineering and building the weapon itself?  Where are the delivery systems?  Were the Syrians going to stick their home made "nucs" on the ends of the North Korean SCUDS that they have?  That would be interesting to see.  Probably not even the most hysterical Israeli strategic thinker believes that. 

Now we have Mullen and Gates beating the drum against the Iranians.  I have been traveling a lot lately in my own country and it is clear to me that many, many people in the USA are not in a position to resist propaganda spread in the MSM and by people like Mullen and Gates.  "Guns of August?"  Or maybe some other month?  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480.html

Israeli Spy Arrested

"Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel, asked about the arrest, said: "We know nothing about it. We heard it from the media."

Kadish's lawyer, Bruce Goldstein, did not immediately return a call for comment.

Pollard, accused of passing on large quantities of classified materials, pleaded guilty in 1986. Israel granted him citizenship in 1996 and acknowledged in 1998 the former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst was one of its spies. Israel has unsuccessfully sought Pollard's release.

Kadish is a Connecticut-born U.S. citizen who worked as a mechanical engineer at the U.S. Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Centre at the Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, New Jersey.

His spying lasted roughly from 1979 to 1985, and his contact with the unidentified Israeli handler continued until March of this year, the federal complaint against him said. Based on circumstances of the case, DiGenova identified Kadish's contact as Yosef Yagur, who has been linked in court documents to the Pollard case. A Justice Department spokesman said he could not confirm that."  Swissinfo

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

OK.  There was more than one Israeli spy working in the US at the time of the Pollard case.  Is this supposed to be a surprise?  People who were knowledgable have known for decades that the FBI has been working on espionage cases involving Jewish Americans spying for Israel.  It takes a long time to assemble court worthy cases for charges like that, especially against political resistance from administrations of both parties.  What you have seen in the last few years is the maturation of some of these cases in the presence of some sort of leverage whichthe FBI has developed that allows them to get the Department of Justice to prosecute.  There may well be more.

Americans (and others) should understand that all (grown up) countries spy on each other.  Information is the coin of international relations.  Spying is better than warring.  One should not assume that any country is "innocent" of such things.  If it is, the citizens of that country should be unhappy.  Their government is not meeting its security obligations to them. 

The Mossad or whichever Israeli agency was involved have long and tragic histories of using Jewish citizens of other countries to spy on their governments.  That is a most irresponsible thing to do.  The practise has led to the deaths or imprisonment of many Jews around the world.

What is their problem?  They can't recruit Gentiles?  pl

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/American_arrested_as_nuclear_spy_for_Israel.html?siteSect=143&sid=9004224&cKey=1208896681000&ty=ti

Absence

I am in the midwest teaching this week.  I will try to post something this afternoon.  pl

They did not Drink the Koolaid?

"These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”"  NY Times

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

Yes, and those who did not "play ball" were systematically excluded from access by the Pentagon.  The MSM picked up those cues (presumably transmitted by the Administration) and stopped talking to many of the best people. 

I was invited to one briefing at the Pentagon.  At the meeting, many of those mentioned in this article were present.  The purpose of the meeting was to give Rumsfeld the chance to explain the Abu Ghraib mess.

I asked some awkward questions and was not invited again.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Newshour. Where is it going?

I told the Newshour some time ago that I was no longer interested, but I still watch.  What else is there to watch, "Battlestar Galactica?"  David Brooks is always amusing and his plug ugly Irish friend is so familiar that how could one pass up the chance to watch the two of them "duke" it out?   Shields' point tonight about the utter insignificance and emptiness of the gesture of wearing a piece of tin in the shape of the US flag struck me as "the real stuff."  People ask me at times why I don't wear one.  My answer?  "I gave at the office."  I don't fly a modern American flag at home either.  This is not a post office.  I fly flags with inscriptions like; "An appeal to heaven," or "Don't Tread On Me."

Tonight we had Robert Satloff, the intelligent and fervent Zionist director of AIPAC's thinktank, "The Washington Institute For Near East Policy" (WINEP) debate Mark Perry, who is something or other with the "Crisis Fora."  (forums?)  They squared off over the issue of whether or not former president Jimmy Carter (never one of my favorites) should talk to the Hamasniks.

Satloff's response was prophetically pre-ordained.  I won't go into it.  Perry professed to believe that Hamas's position is so nuanced that it should be explored.  Maybe so. 

My problem with discussions like this is that the participants are so compromised by sponsorship and ideology that their statements are meaningless.

In my opinion, Satloff is basically an Israeli with ties to the US.  Perry is a man whose leanings toward the Palestinians are so pronounced and unequivocal that his objectivity is as much in question as that of Satloff.  His sponsorship and that of his British colleague; Ramsbotham, Cruikshank or whatever is so deeply affected by partisan money that his words lack meaning.

Why doesn't the Newhour actually try to find some neutrals, instead of just matching up the usual talking heads? 

Not me.  Go find someone new or watch the Newshour decline into insignificance when Jim leaves.  A Georgetown socialite like Judy Woodruff as anchor is not going to "cut it."  pl

Shia (and other) Politics in Iraq.

"Iraqi troops have cordoned off the Basra office of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's followers, preventing them from holding Friday prayers.

Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Major General Abdul-Karim Khalaf said the operation is only aimed at recovering offices he said were unfairly occupied by political groups.

Sadr supporters say they have been given 48 hours to leave the premises.

There were no immediate reports of fighting between Iraqi troops and Sadr followers."  VOA News

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

Let's see...  What is going on at present in Iraq.

1-  The intensive pushing and shoving among the Shia politico-military factions continues with the "Iraq Security Forces" (Dawa/Badr/Hakim/ISCI) seeking to leverage American support for enough power to neuter Moqtada al-Sadr and his band of merry Mahdists (or Mahdinistas if you prefer) before the putative provincial elections in the Autumn. (maybe there won't be elections if the neutering does not go well)

2- The US continues to insist that its chosen Iraqi faction has already achieved the status of "legitimacy" in the eyes of "the Iraqi people."  No. It has not, but, you never know, this might work if we stick with that idea for enough years.  McCain would give us the chance to find out if that is possible.

3- The Iranians continue to play all sides against the middle waiting to see what happens.  Who knows?  We might even decide to talk to them on a serious basis.

4- The Sunni international jihadists (AQ in I) are trying to stage a comeback by blowing themselves up in suicide attacks against the "Sons of Iraq."  This is unlikely to have much political effect since the Sunni Arabs have pretty much opted against them.  (The fish in the sea... Remember that old stuff?)

Bottom line,  "there will be blood," but not as much as there used to be.  pl

Incidentally, I did not like the movie.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-18-voa20.cfm

The pope and the bishops

"Four years ago, the National Review Board of laity, established by the American church to investigate the scandal, declared that “there must be consequences” for the bishops, not just for the more than 700 pedophile priests hurriedly dismissed after the scandal broke in the secular press. Some board members called for dismissal for prelates who instead of protecting children protected the abusers, denying the crimes and moving the abusers on to another parish. There has been no diocesan resolve to lay bare the hierarchy’s guilt.

The review board also found the Vatican’s response ineffective, which underlines Benedict’s opportunity to confront his bishops. There is a lot on the papal agenda, from immigration to world poverty. But the American church remains deeply wounded. By the church’s accounting, more than 4,000 priests, or 4 percent, across two generations, were reported to have committed abuse. Five dioceses have gone bankrupt as payouts to victims total $2.4 billion and counting. "  NY Times

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

It is surprising that the New York Times should have something this interesting to say about religion.   

I find it difficult to summon up much enthusiam for the pope's visit to the US in the context of the unfinished business of the clerical abuse of children.  It does not seem that "the Church" yet comprehends how badly renegade priests wounded the "Body of Christ" in this country.  In that context It is not edifying to witness the spectacle of an army of bishops processing in vestments so splendid that they can only be a reinforcement for the vanity of men who should be humbled.  This is a group of men who have failed in their duty, and the pope refers to them as his "brother bishops?"

As an example of their failure, the Catholic Church's system of parish schools has been a mighty force for good in the United States.  The poor and the ignorant have found food for the mind and the soul in those schools.  Now the Church is forced to close schools across the country because of a shortage of funds.  Money is a fungible commodity.  There is only so much of it available for the various functions of the Church.  Money paid out in settlements for the crimes of churchmen is not available to be used for other things, like parish schools.

The bishops collectively are responsible for a failure in this pastoral responsibility and in so many others.  The bishops of the Catholic Church are quite autonomous in their territorial "rights."  They are also a kind of self-perpetuating "club," rather like generals and admirals.  They will do nothing to discipline each other.  It is the pope's responsibility to do that.

Benedict the Sixteenth likes to think about liturgical details and the symbolism of the renewed use of old forms of vesting?  Maybe he ought to think about the opinion of all those people out there, the "people in the pews," or the people who used to be in the pews.  It is heart warming to hear Spanish used in his homily today, but the trend in the English speaking majority of Catholics in this country is to vote with their feet against the Catholic Church.

Maybe he ought to think about whether or not the hierarchy here is really going to do anything about that.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17thu2.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

"you mean more soldiers." Dick Cavett

"It’s like listening to someone speaking a language you only partly know. And who’s being paid by the syllable. You miss a lot. I guess a guy bearing up under such a chestload of hardware — and pretty ribbons in a variety of decorator colors — can’t be expected to speak like ordinary mortals, for example you and me. He should try once saying — instead of “ongoing process of high level engagements” — maybe something in colloquial English? Like: “fights” or “meetings” (or whatever the hell it’s supposed to mean).

I find it painful to watch this team of two straight men, straining on the potty of language. Only to deliver such . . . what? Such knobbed and lumpy artifacts of superfluous verbiage? (Sorry, now I’m doing it…)

But I must hand it to his generalship. He did say something quite clearly and admirably and I am grateful for his frankness. He told us that our gains are largely imaginary: that our alleged “progress” is “fragile and reversible.” (Quite an accomplishment in our sixth year of war.) This provides, of course, a bit of pre-emptive covering of the general’s hindquarters next time that, true to Murphy’s Law, things turn sour again."  Cavett

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

These two gents certainly were adrift in a semantical whitewater rafting expedition.

A lot of generals have learned to speak a specialized dialect in which they utter broken, incomplete, sentences, stumble over words and never fully express an answer to whatever it was they were asked.  This is a technique, acquired I suppose, from observing others who have "made it" to high rank.  If you talk that way, it is impossible to analyze transcripts or memory and assign blame for a trip "south" in whatever process the general may be engaged.

State Department guys do not usually resort to such rhetorical devices, preferring to express whatever it is, in a preppy imitation of actual culture and learning.  Crocker has spent a lot of time around the military and I believe he has family connections to the soldiery.  So, his style is a blend of the two.  In private he can be quite pointed and nasty.  Somehow all the duhs, uhs, etc. disappear on such occasions.

At a conference I was moderating a few months ago, I grew weary of listening to this kind of "burospeek"  and asked one man if by "kinetic exhaustion" he meant "tired of fighting."  He admitted that he did.  pl

http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/memo-to-petraeus-crocker-more-laughs-please/?em&ex=1208404800&en=4fae4715616aa912&ei=5087%0A

"Israel Can Stand Up for Itself" - Zev Chafets

"..in exchange for assistance, Washington would naturally (and rightly) demand a very strong say in Israeli policies. A misstep, after all, could embroil it in a nuclear exchange. Within a very short time, Israel’s sovereignty and autonomy would come to resemble Minnesota’s. This is not a bad thing if your country happens to border Iowa. It works less well in Israel’s neighborhood.

I’m not questioning American friendship. But even friendship has practical limits. Presidents change and policies change. George W. Bush, the greatest friend Israel has had in the White House, hasn’t been able to keep a (relatively easier) commitment to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It is a good thing that Israel didn’t build its deterrence on that commitment.

What’s more, it is fair to say that Israel is not a weak country. It has developed a powerful set of strategic options. In the best case, it would be able to act on its own to degrade and retard the Iranian nuclear program as it did in Iraq (and, more recently, Syria). In a worse case, if the Iranians do get the bomb, Iranian leaders might be deterred by rational considerations. If so, Israel’s own arsenal — and its manifest willingness to respond to a nuclear attack — ought to suffice."  Chafets

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

"Commitment?" To Israel?  When was this commitment made?  I was under the impression that Bush's opposition to the putative Iranian weapons program was sui generis.  (irony alert)  In other words, I thought that this was a policy decided on in the context of internal American debate.  Does this mean that that this policy was a concession to Israel?

Chafets doesn't believe that the US is a reliable ally.  In other words he agrees with De Gaulle's opinion that America could not have been relied on to go to war against the Soviet Union in order to save Europe.  That is why France withdrew her forces from NATO command.  The Germans and the other NATO countries did not agree with De Gaulle's view in this.

Chafets also thinks that Israel can deal with its security issues alone.  If that is so, then why is the US providing Israel so much budgetary support at present? 

Chafets specifically rejects Krauthammer's idea of a written American commitment to retaliation on behalf of (or perhaps in memory of) Israel.

There will be opinions here I am sure.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13chafets.html?ref=todayspaper

"A Paradigm Shift: How Hizbollah Won the War" Alam

"If the Hizbollah can extend these advantages, if it can add shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to its arsenal and bring down a few Israeli helicopters and jets, Israel could quickly lose its unchallenged control over Lebanese skies. Israel’s daily and wanton violations of Lebanese airspace would also come to an end.

The Hizbollah offers Israel a new kind of asymmetric warfare: it combines low-tech guerilla tactics with sophisticated missile and communications technology. Understandably, the Israelis find these Hizbollah achievements hard to digest. What the world witnessed in Lebanon in July 2006 were events that contain the potential for shifting the balance of power in the Middle East. Earlier, the Iraqi insurgents had demonstrated that they can make an occupation – even by the world’s greatest power – very costly. Now, the Hizbollah had shown that a disciplined guerilla force, with access to advanced missiles, can repel the most powerful invading army. "  Alam

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

See my talk at the Miller Center on September 11, 2006.  I would differ with Professor Alam only in his description of the force that fought the Israelis in 2006 as "a guerrilla army."  A "guerrilla army" employs guerrilla tactics, that is, it fights a war of the "ants against the elephant."  It seeks to inflict long term physical and spiritual attrition on a conventional enemy through ambush, raiding and similar operations.  It nearly always seeks to avoid becoming decisively engaged.

Hizbullah, as it was in Lebanon in 2006, was not a "guerrilla army."  It was an army in the process of metamorphosis.  pl

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13690

Krauthammer's Solution for Israel

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."   Charles Krauthammer's for American deterrance in protection of Israel.  (See his oped below.)

*****************************************************************

"The president is out of options. He is going to hand over to his successor an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert. "  CK below.

*****************************************************************

"This failure can, however, be mitigated. As there will apparently be no disarming of Iran by preemption or by sanctions, we shall have to rely on deterrence to prevent the mullahs, some of whom are apocalyptic and messianic, from using nuclear weapons.  CK below.

*****************************************************************

"Every future president -- and every serious presidential candidate -- would have to publicly state whether or not the Holocaust Declaration remains the policy of the United States."  CK below.

*****************************************************************

"..there can be no more pressing cause than preventing the nuclear annihilation of an allied democracy, the last refuge and hope of an ancient people openly threatened with the final Final Solution."  CK below.

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

One hardly knows what to write.  I would like someone to explain if Doctor Krauthammer's "modest proposal" has the support of the Jewish community (He expresses it that way), as well as his Jacobin brethren of every form of consciousness.

This should be debated.  It may have merit if the virtual protectorate over Israel that he advocates would balance responsibility and authority.  In other words would a specific and effectively irrevocable American assumption of responsibility for Israel's survival in a nuclear world be matched with the ability to control actions which might lead to an Israeli/Iranian confrontation?  Any keen observer of the United States should have known that the US nuclear umbrella has been extended to cover Israel for a long, long time on a de facto basis.  That was adequate because ambiguity is the soul of deterrence.  Evidently that was not good enough for the doctor, and apparently not for others as well? 

The Ayatollahs are not "rational actors?"  This is a doubtful idea.  Opinions?  There seems to be someoone in Iran who controls military motorboats and who is not acting as a "rational actor."  That demonstration of folly should be met with appropriate force.

"the last refuge and hope of an ancient people "  Say what?   Where was he writing from?  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041003271.html

"a dysfunctional little friend" Maureen Dowd

"You know you’re in trouble when Barbara Boxer is the voice of reason.

“Why is it,” she asked, “after all we have given — 4,024 American lives, gone; more than half-a-billion dollars spent; all this for the Iraqi people, but it’s the Iranian president who is greeted with kisses and flowers?”

She warmed to: “He got a red-carpet treatment, and we are losing our sons and daughters every single day for the Iraqis to be free. It is irritating is my point.”

Ambassador Crocker dryly assured the senator from California that he believed that Dick Cheney had also gotten kissed on his visit to Iraq. "  Dowd

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

Yeah, Crocker's weltschmerz is a little hard to take.  Foreign Service officers cultivate this air of resigned sophistication.  Generals cultivate the "can do" projection of enthusiasm for all causes sponsored by "the man."  Ah, well.  Each trade to its peculiar professional deformation.

Bayh had it right, "we don't know where we are going or when we will get there." 

Someone wrote to me that Wolf Blitzer said these men are not "political appointees?"  Really?  He should ask Abizeid, Casey and any number of others about that.  Anyone who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate is a political appointee.

These two men are mere functionaries.  George Bush is the man responsible for whatever we think we can call policy in the Middle East.  We should never forget that.  pl   

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/opinion/09dowd.html

Petraeus and Crocker, less convincing this time

The power of description is a mighty power indeed.  Congress and the MSM give televised witnesses a splendid opportunity to "frame" discussions in such a way that the old "saw" that holds that one is entitled to a particular point of view but not to invented facts becomes irrelevant.

This week's stalwart duo has relentlessly and endlessly described the Badr/ISCI/Dawa hold on power in Iraq as the "government of Iraq" so many times that it must seem to most people that Maliki is the reincarnation of George Washington rather than merely one of the contestants for power in that miserable place.

Then, there are the "special groups."   These two words are being used to conjure up direct Iranian responsibility for our remaining difficulties in Iraq.  We seem to be expected to believe that were it not for the Iranians all would be well in Iraq. 

The endless repetition of these two propaganda "themes;"

- Maliki's legitimacy above all other contenders

- direct Iranian intervention as the cause of Shia infighting,

have been the music of the Petraeus/Crocker show before Congress.

This propaganda technique of the endless repetition of truth, half truth or outright lies is the essence of the propaganda trade.

This is how we were sold the war.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/washington/09cnd-petraeus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Baram on Maliki

"Dear Pat,

We know about Maliki's latest moves:

"Iraq

's prime minister has threatened to exclude the supporters of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr from politics.

Nouri Maliki told CNN that the cleric's movement would not be allowed to take part in elections unless it disbanded its militia, the Mehdi Army" . Muqtada for his part turned to Sistani (Najaf) and Kazem Ha'iri (Qomm) for their opinions (BBC).  In view of his and his late father's bitter rivalry with Sistani, this is a revolutionary move.

Maliki: yesterday the Iraqi TV reported of his speech at the funeral of his security aid Salim (Abu Layth) al-Ta'iyy who was killed in a battle in Basra. Maliki presented the government troops' attack on the Mahdi Army in Basra as part of the legacy of Muqtada's father, "Al-Shahid al-Sadr". By this he attempted to present Muqtada as someone who betrayed his father's legacy. Maliki presented himself for the first time as the "Commander in Chief (al-Qa'id al-'Amm) of the Iraqi Armed Forces".  This is based on the Iraqi Constitution according to which: "The Prim Minister is  ... the Commander in Chief of the armed forces" (Article 77). It also seems to be following in the footsteps of the American Constitution, but under Saddam, too, the president was the Commander in Chief. Maliki however has not until yesterday used this title. It seems that using it is part of his confrontational and uncompromising (so far) position vis-a-vis the Mahdi Army but also a part of an attempt to impose his will on his ministers of defense and the interior, two independent and strong personalities at the helm of the two most important security apparatuses.

Yours

Amatzia" 

Maliki's Threat and the Ayatollahs

Nuri Al-Maliki's mew posture against his rival and former ally, Moqtada al-Sadr is a threat to prevent the Sadrists from participating in the coming provincial elections in Iraq.

Unable to defeat Sadr on the streets of Basra, Baghdad or anywhere else apparently, Maliki and presumably his American interlocutors are seeking to "neuter" the Sadrist movement by forcing Sadr to "disarm" in the face of control of the Iraqi Security forces by Maliki's Dawa Party and the Badr Force militiamen.  Presumably, they think that a disarmed Mahdi Army/Sadrist movement would be unable to resist whatever result might be created in the elections.

Why would the Maliki/Hakim/US forces want that?  Application of Occam's Razor to this issue yields the solution that those forces fear that Sadr would become stronger in the elections if allowed to contest them on an "even playing field."

Sadr's response has been to ask for the guidance of the senior ayatollahs in Najaf and Qom as to whether or not he should disarm.  (Irony Alert - one would hope that he will also seek the guidance of the Mahdi in this matter)  This appeal to Najaf and Qom is a strong move.  He can hardly lose in this.  If he is advised by the ijma' (consensus) of the hawza to retain his forces, then he will do so with religious sanction.  If advised to disarm, then Maliki will be in the position of either allowing Sadr to run his candidates relatively unmolested or of being seen to have "rigged" the election against the consensus of the hawza. 

Sadr is now in Qom seeking to sharpen his religious and political credentials.  The Iranians' fine, complex, Florentine hand is in this somewhere.  pl

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/07/mideast/iraq.php

Number of Visits

The "stats" page of this little blog now records over two million visits to SST.  That is nothing in comparison to the news blogs, but for this "committee of correspondence," I think it is not too bad.  pl

Inquisitors

"Oct. 23, 2001 An Office of Legal Counsel memo titled "Re Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States" states that domestic military operations involving terrorism are not regulated by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil.

Jan. 25, 2002 An Office of Legal Counsel memo concludes that the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the treatment and interrogation of al-Qaeda prisoners."

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

I thought that I had known some tough, ruthless "customers" over the decades, but now I see that they were mostly "wusses."  All those Special Forces soldiers and intelligence people, they just did not "measure up" as tough guys compared to Washington lawyers like the ones cited in this article.

Modern day "Torquemadas" in single needle suits and hand made English shoes.

One must wonder if was mere ambition or a conviction of the rectitude of illegal search and seizure inflicted on American citizens that appealed more to these lawyers in writing these papers.  Maybe it was the fees.   Ah. No.  These were government types, at least for the season.

I suspect that it was ambition.

To make all this even more bitter, the plan clearly was to use American soldiers to do much of this.  (Irony Alert) How grand an idea! In this way American soldiers could be trained to think that such behavior is appropriate.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/05/AR2008040502140.html

Baram on Moqtada's Activities

"Dear Pat,

You may find this of interest. From Iraqi TV reports: Muqtada's "Initiative"

(Mubadara) seems to hold, more-or-less. The essence of the Initiative: a ceasefire, everybody in their place, no weapons surrendered to the government. Muqtada also demanded, as part of the cease fire, release of the Mahdi Army prisoners in government hands (around 2000). So far: this is a draw. Government troops continue with sporadic arrests of Mahdi militiamen, but no military breakthrough. It may easily be also seen as a defeat to Maliki, if he gets no US-British support on a large scale. The field of activity is shifting to mass politics. In Basra ans Karbala today for the first time tribal demostrations in support of Maliki. In Basra his own tribe, the Bani Malek, and in Karbala the [Shi'i] branch of the Janabiyyin, a small but highly respected tribe, mainly due to their kinship ties to the highly-influential Sunni Janibiyyin. The two demos danced their tribal war dance (al-Hosa) and sang praise for Maliki. Still, the demos were not very large. In al-Furat TV a list of tribes supportive of Maliki was provided.

This is very reminiscent of Saddam's practice of providing lists of tribal shaykhs swearing allegiance to the Historical Necessity, the Commander of the Legions of the Faithful. In Kazimiyya, on the other hand, there was a demo against Maliki, with a few men carrying a coffin with the PM's name on it. That one too was not very large either. Kazimiyya is Mahdi Army stronghold, with clerical support from the radiical Ayatollah Khalisi.

Best

Amatzia "

CFA will be no more.

"It is unclear whether Mr. Clapper is also recommending tighter restrictions on Pentagon counterterrorism and counterespionage operations in the United States.

Some civil liberties groups said they worried that the change might be cosmetic and that the Pentagon might be closing the office to farm out its operations to other agencies that receive less scrutiny.

Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said the recommendation to close the office had nothing to do with its troubled history. The move is aimed, Colonel Ryder said, at “creating efficiencies and streamlining” Pentagon efforts to thwart operations by foreign intelligence services and terror networks.

Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called the decision long overdue.

Mr. Reyes said the office “was a Rumsfeld-era relic that triggered major concern about domestic intelligence gathering by the Pentagon against Americans.”

The work of coordinating the Pentagon’s various counterintelligence activities would remain important, Mr. Reyes said, but “vigorous oversight” would be needed under the new structure.

Some current and former Pentagon officials expressed concern that putting the mission of countering foreign intelligence services under the Defense Intelligence Agency could signal a decline in its priority. But Colonel Ryder, the Pentagon spokesman, said the recommendation to close the counterintelligence office was intended to strengthen counterintelligence operations. "

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

The United States does not need a big, powerful military oriented counter-intelligence agency.  The FBI exists for the specific purpose of doing this kind of work under the aegis of the Justice Department.  The CFA was always a manifestation of Von Rumsfeld's obsessions.  Rumsfeld, like his old pal the VP are devoted to the idea of centralized power and they trust no organization that they do not personally control.

Given the nature of the Washington power structure, an agency like the CFA will always grow if not reduced by fiat.  It will grow in power, scope of activity and budget.  Why?  Simple.  In any such organization the career formation of the personnel and the "urge to power" of the managers combine to make those involved obsess over numbers, function and access to the elected elite.  All those things come with demonstrated activity of a measurable kind.

Good riddance.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/washington/02intel.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1207145053-okpQvVcfQCuN/E9IH20yeQ