A Spork in the Drawer

Honestly...

In reference to the absurd Baker-Christopher recommendations on just who gets to declare war in this country the criminally addlepated David Broder asks:

The Founders left a ton of confusion about a pretty important question: Who has the authority to make war?

Ok, again, Article I Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to to declare war

Got that? Again:

The Congress shall have power to to declare war

Now in fairness, Broder, like Baker and Christopher, gets confused when you put this up against the whole "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" thing but that doesn't say anything about the president having the power to declare war.

So just who does have that power?

The Congress shall have power to to declare war

One more time for those in the back rows:

The Congress shall have power to to declare war

Apparently, spending time at Georgetown cocktail parties rots the brain. Maybe it's the canapés. Somebody should check.

.

The Powerful And Clueless

Former Secs. of State Warren Christopher and Bush Family Conigliere James Baker have an idea:

The report calls for the passage of a new War Powers Consultation Act early in the next Congress. It would require the president to consult with a new joint congressional committee before deploying troops to a "significant armed conflict" -- defined as lasting longer than one week -- and would mandate regular consultation thereafter. Response to a terrorist attack and covert actions would be exempted from its requirements.

The bill would also require a congressional vote approving military action within 30 days of its inception. If approval was not given, any lawmaker could introduce a "disapproval" resolution that would have to be voted on within five days. If it passed, the president would have to comply or veto the measure. If lawmakers could not override a presidential veto, Congress's remaining option would be to deny funding.

Baker notes that the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war.

That sounds like a viable "War Powers Act" to me.

Astoundingly, out of the hundreds of wars and significant military actions this nation has undertaken Congress has declared war only five times: 1812, Mexican, Spanish, WWI, and WWII.

Since presidents of all parties have ignored the Constitution in this matter - and Congress has refused to do anything about it - why would yet another War Powers Act change anything at all?

.

No

Writing in Time Romesh Ratnesar asks:

Is it Time to Invade Burma?

Given that we have two wars that aren't going well at all how about we refrain from invading, occupying, and/or obliterating anyone for awhile?

Okay?

.

Beating The War Drums Anew

Here we go again:

According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12), Fallon may be prematurely “relieved of his command” as soon as this summer:

[W]ell-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don’t want a commander standing in their way.

Just in time for the November elections. Funny that.

.

Son Of Wednesday Boot

Our old pal Max Boot is back on the pages of the LATimes, if only for a one-shot. Today, (yesterday, actually) Max comes to praise St. John not bury him. But first, Max gives us a setup:

Some conservatives are having conniptions over the rise of John McCain as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Personally, I am less interested in what Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay or Ann Coulter think than I am in the views of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar Assad and Kim Jong Il.

Max goes on to suggest we should call this terrible trio the new "axis of evil" but with Syria replacing that blooming democracy known as Iraq. And indeed, after explaining all the naughty things those naughty axis-of-evilers are doing, Max turns to the naughty things they are doing in Iraq - after mentioning, of course, just what a swell place that benighted country has become. But Max allows his sunny outlook to be polluted by some dissonance:

Clearly, these rogue regimes do not fear the consequences of waging a proxy war on America and our allies. They think they can get away with killing and maiming American soldiers -- and so far they have been right.

President Bush has not done enough to back up his threats against Iran and Syria, beyond pushing for economic sanctions of limited value at a time when oil is hitting $100 a barrel. The president has refused to authorize even limited special operations strikes on jihadist networks inside Syria or Iran.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Max calling for acts of war in that last sentence? Why yes, yes he is. But first:

This is part of a larger trend of Bush combining strong words with weak actions.

Noconservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. And the failure, friends, is George W. Bush. This make Max sad and he's now forced to find someone new, someone who will fulfill his war fantasies:

It is hard to see how Bush could reverse this decline in America's "fear factor" during the remaining year of his presidency. That will be the job of the next president. And who would be the most up to the task?

Whoever could be up to the task? Who? Who? Ahhhh...

To answer that question, ask yourself which presidential candidate an Ahmadinejad, Assad or Kim would fear the most. I submit it is not Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, the leading candidate to scare the snot out of our enemies is a certain former aviator who has been noted for his pugnacity and his unwavering support of the American war effort in Iraq. Ironically, John McCain's bellicose aura could allow us to achieve more of our objectives peacefully because other countries would be more afraid to mess with him than with most other potential occupants of the Oval Office -- or the current one.

That's it! Elect St. John and the regimes in Iran, Syria, and North Korea will vacate power and turn themselves in to be tried and found guilty of being very naughty indeed.

And if they don't, well, St. John jsut might sing his favorite song.

.

Inevitable Parody

You might recall the near-brilliant Obama video from last week. Get ready because here's the St. John McCain version:

Heh.

[Via AmericaBlog.]

.

Not A Promise

A threat:

Sen. John McCain told a crowd of supporters on Sunday, "It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars." Offering more of his increasingly bleak "straight talk," he repeated the claim: "I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

Remember, kids: St. John is the "reasonable and moderate" Republican. Yeah, right. All of those Democrats who say "I'll vote for McCain if (Hillary/Obama) is our candidate!" might want to keep this in mind.

[Via Election Central.]

.

Onward To Tehran!

And on it goes:

Iranian support for militias who are destabilizing Iraq has risen since the United States and Iran held a breakthrough round of talks in Baghdad in May, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq said on Tuesday.

.

16 Words

The WaPo takes a new look at the infamous "16 Words" - the section of George's 2003 SOU speech claiming that Iraq attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger that would eventually lead to the conviction of Irving "Scooter" Libby. It's a complicated story so I don't want to try to summarize it but I do want to point out two paragraphs:

The interviews also showed that France, berated by the Bush administration for opposing the Iraq war, honored a U.S. intelligence request to investigate the uranium claim. It determined that its former colony had not sold uranium to Iraq.

[...]

At this point, State Department analysts had determined the documents were phony, and had produced by far the most accurate assessment of Iraq's weapons program of the 16 agencies that make up the intelligence community. But the department's small intelligence unit operated in a bubble. Few administration officials -- not even Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- paid much attention to its analytical product, much of which clashed with the White House's assumptions.

Putting aside facts because they "clash" with "assumptions" is the hallmark of the current regime and deliberately demonizing an ally to whip up war fever merely shows the utter lack of morals and ethics of the administration. That anyone still trusts these people - hello, 30%! - is nothing short of astounding.

.

Do Ya Think?

U.S. strategy on Iran may have backfired

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Increase the military, diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran to get the country to bow to the international community on its nuclear enrichment program and curtail its alleged troublemaking in Iraq.

[...]

Months of hard-nosed U.S. political and military pressure on Iran may have further radicalized and emboldened the regime, undermining Washington's stated aim of neutralizing the Iranian threat without resorting to war, analysts say.

You'd have to be naive to believe the administration's "stated aim" on anything.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's New Yorker articles detailing U.S. plans to attack Iran, and a Russian newspaper report specifying this Friday as the day for U.S. airstrikes have made the rounds of blogs and Persian-language satellite channels.

The rumors about an attack on Iran this Friday have been floating around for a couple of weeks now. I can't say I put much credence in them but what with the carrier groups floating around the area and the capture of the Brits - a deliberate provocation? - this weekend is as good a time as any from an administration persepective. At any rate, we'll know soon enough.

.

Wheeee!

In the Persian Gulf:

The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.

They're probably hoping for another Gulf of Tonkin.

.

This Is Not Good

Big big problems could be headed our way:

The US is scrambling to head off a "disastrous" Turkish military intervention in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq that threatens to derail the Baghdad security surge and open up a third front in the battle to save Iraq from disintegration.

[...]

But Abdullah Gul, Turkey's foreign minister, MPs, military chiefs and diplomats say up to 3,800 PKK fighters are preparing for attacks in south-east Turkey — and Turkey is ready to hit back if the Americans fail to act. "We will do what we have to do, we will do what is necessary. Nothing is ruled out," Mr Gul said. "I have said to the Americans many times: suppose there is a terrorist organisation in Mexico attacking America. What would you do?... We are hopeful. We have high expectations. But we cannot just wait forever."

Turkish sources said "hot pursuit" special forces operations in Khaftanin and Qanimasi, northern Iraq, were already under way. Murat Karayilan, a PKK leader, said this week that a "mad war" was in prospect unless Ankara backed off.

A Turkish invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan would make the situation over there a bit more difficult, I would think.

.

Who Wants Weapons?

We want weapons!

As fears grow over the escalating confrontation between Iran and the West, Arab states across the Persian Gulf have begun a rare show of muscle flexing, publicly advertising a shopping spree for new weapons and openly discussing their security concerns.

[...]

Patriot missile batteries capable of striking down ballistic missiles have been readied in several gulf countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, analysts say, and increasingly, the states have sought to emphasize their unanimity against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It's odd that the article doesn't mention that the US has destabilized the region. Odd, too, that there's no mention of the enormous sums of cash being raked in by US arms manufacturers.

Or maybe it's not so odd.

.

Here It Comes

Iran:

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

[...]

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

In other words, Gulf of Tonkin redux. (They'll trace any such attack back to Iran regardless of the facts.)

.

Remember This

SecDef Bob Gates this morning:

"The President has made clear, the Secretary of State has made clear, I've made clear ... we are not planning for a war with Iran," he told reporters.

OK, Bob, I'll take that as a promise.

.

Yes. Yes It Is.

George:

Bush told Cavuto, "We've got a war that we're fighting against extremists, radicals who would do us harm. We're in a major battle in that war in Iraq. And it's -- it's unsettling times when you're at war. War's -- war's hard. War's difficult. It's negative."

War may be hard. War may be difficult. War may be negative. But not so much so as to interrupt his sleep:

“I must tell you, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume,” he said.

Video at first link. If you can stand it.

.

The Remnants Of War

Germany:

The flatlands of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a sparsely populated state that covers northeastern Germany, are still littered with thousands of tons of unexploded ordnance from the Nazi era. There are cluster bombs, mortar shells, hand grenades, rockets. Most were manufactured and abandoned by the Third Reich, but there are also plenty of aging but still potent explosives left here and in neighboring states by Soviet, U.S. and British forces.

For more than 60 years, German bomb squads have been cleaning up. They comb through the woods and dredge the ponds, sift through construction sites and back yards. There's no end in sight.

"In my lifetime, I will never see all the munitions cleaned up in this area of Germany," said Sebastian Dosdall, the boss of this bomb-disposal crew, clad in a pea-green jacket, work pants and metal-shanked boots. "It's hard to clear everything, everywhere."

.

Iran War Watch

Latest:

Investigators say they believe that attackers who used American-style uniforms and weapons to infiltrate a secure compound and kill five American soldiers in Karbala on Jan. 20 may have been trained and financed by Iranian agents, according to American and Iraqi officials knowledgeable about the inquiry.

The officials said the sophistication of the attack astonished investigators, who doubt that Iraqis could have carried it out on their own — one reason a connection to Iran is being closely examined. Officials cautioned that no firm conclusions had been drawn and did not reveal any direct evidence of a connection.

[...]

The suspects have also told investigators that “a religious group in Najaf” was involved in the operation, the Iraqi said, in a clear reference to the Mahdi Army, the militia controlled by the breakaway Shiite cleric, Moktada al-Sadr. If that information holds up, it would dovetail with assertions by several Iraqi officials that Iran is financing and training a small number of splinter groups from the Mahdi Army to carry out special operations and assassinations.

This one looks like a two-fer: Iran and Moktada.

Josh speculates on what the new Gulf of Tonkin will look like.

ADDED: From the LAT:

The efforts could include more forceful patrols by Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border to counter the smuggling of bomb supplies from Iran, a senior Pentagon official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing future military plans.

Such missions also could position the Air Force to strike suspected bomb suppliers inside Iraq to deter Iranian agents that U.S. officials say are assisting Iraqi militias, outside military experts said.

[...]

Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who advocates military strikes in Iran, said U.S. planes along the border could be better used to keep bomb-making materials out of Iraq.

"We know they are doing this. Why do we accept it?" McInerney said. "For every [improvised explosive device] that goes off in Iraq, a bomb should go off in Iran." [Emphasis added.]

Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, said many military targets in Iran were susceptible to Air Force weapons.

"Iran is precisely the type of enemy they know how to deal with," Thompson said. "Having the ability to attack Iranian military targets and political targets is not just a deterrent. It may actually be used if we feel the Iranians are trying to subvert democracy in Iraq."

Anyone who believes that there are "no plans" to attack Iran is a fool.

.

Playing With Numbers

Like Hell:

For the last few months, anyone who consulted the Veterans Affairs Department’s Web site to learn how many American troops had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan would have found this number: 50,508.

But on Jan. 10, without explanation, the figure plummeted to 21,649.

Which number is correct? The answer depends on a larger question, the definition of wounded. If the term includes combat or “hostile” injuries inflicted by the enemy, the definition the Pentagon uses, the smaller number would be right.

But if it also applies to injuries from accidents like vehicle crashes and to mental and physical illnesses that developed in the war zone, the meaning that veterans’ groups favor, 50,508 would be accurate.

[...]

“The government keeps two sets of books,” said Paul Sullivan, director of research and analysis for Veterans of America. Until last March, Mr. Sullivan was a project manager in the Veterans Affairs Department who monitored the use of disability benefits by Afghanistan, gulf war and Iraq veterans.

The lower number reflects better on the Administration. It's that simple.

.

The Scariest Part

William Arkin:

Speaking about the two countries tonight, the president said that the United States wiill "seek out and destroy" those who are providing material support to our enemies.

It is only a threat. But it is a far cry from the diplomatic proposals floated just last month for making Syria and Iran part of the solution. Can the president really be saying that we are willing to risk war with the two countries, and even attack elements inside them, to achieve peace in Iraq?

[...]

And how will Syria and Iran react? President Bush implicitly accused the two of providing sanctuary and material support for violent elements in Iraq. There is an ominous element here: When the President pledged to "seek out and destroy the networks supporting our enemies in Iraq," to me, that means the threat of strikes on targets in those two countries.

From the speech:

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

.

Somalia

Robert Farley on our shiny new proxy-war:

We established in 2001 that the model can overthrow a low capacity regime with extraordinarily weak military forces, and we've demonstrated it again in the last month. What with the partial withdrawal of Ethiopian forces, the continued use of air strikes against Somali targets, and what appears to be the introduction of a substantial peacekeeping contingent, this is going to look a lot more like Afghanistan than Iraq. Doesn't provide all that much comfort, given the failure of much larger and more capable NATO forces to stabilize that country.

If you're untouched by any clash of civilizations wankery, the question comes down to whether it's better to allow a low capacity jihadist sympathetic regime or to further radicalize Somalis (and some foreign allies) through a protracted guerilla war. Things could work out, but I'm increasingly pessimistic.

Maybe in a general sense taking on Islamists in Somalia is a good idea but remember that the decisions will be made by The Decider. And that doesn't inspire confidence.

.

Relevant

Places to be today so I'll see you tomorrow. In the meantime, The powerful Black Adder Goes Forth, "Goodbyee!" (About 9 minutes long):

.

LameDuck George Throws A Fit

Allies not being compliant enough:

US President George Bush has berated Nato members reluctant to send troops to Afghan hotspots, demanding they must accept "difficult assignments".

Speaking ahead of a Nato meeting in Latvia, Mr Bush said members must provide the forces the alliance needs.

Perhaps any reticence is because, aside from a few domestic mouth-breathers, nobody has any confidence in George anymore?

Just a thought.

.

Support The Troops!

Here's how much your government cares:

ARLINGTON, Va. — Fallen servicemembers and Defense Department civilians are now being transported home in flag-embossed containers after two instances in which the remains were not handled correctly on commercial aircraft, according to the head of Army mortuary affairs.

[...]

“We don’t want them coming off mixed with luggage and handled in an improper way because someone on the ground didn’t realize what’s going on,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

[...]

The “honor cover” features a graphic of an American flag and the Defense Department seal on both ends of the container in which caskets are transported, said Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Defense Department spokesman.

The Defense Department is not releasing pictures of the honor covers because a permanent design has not yet been decided upon, Upton said.

From "flag-draped coffins" to "honor-covered containers." And treated like your vacation luggage.

Who, again, honors the fallen?

[Via scout_prime.]

.

In Need Of Therapy

Atrios rightly points out the latest idiocies from the WaPo's always idiotic Richard Cohen. But I want to point out this bit:

On the contrary, I thought. We are a good country, attempting to do a good thing. In a post-Sept. 11 world, I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic. The United States had the power to change things for the better, and those who would do the changing -- the fighting -- were, after all, volunteers. This mattered to me.

What kind of sociopathy leads to the statement, "I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic."?

However unfortunate, war sometimes is necessary. But no war should be entered into so someone can feel good about himself. It takes a special kind of moral degeneracy to even engage in such thinking. We know where Richard Cohen stands.

.

The Wisdom Of Your Preznit

In Vietnam:

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said Friday the United States' unsuccessful war in Vietnam three decades ago offered lessons for the American-led struggle in Iraq.

"We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush said shortly after arriving in this one-time war capital.

Bonus quote:

"Laura and I were talking about how amazing it is that we're here in Vietnam," the president said.

He seems surprised that the Texas Air National Guard rejected him this time.

.

It's Worse Than We Thought

Steve Clemons relates a dinner converstion.

If you don't want to be depressed you might want to skip this one.

.

Do You Ever...

...get the idea that our current government has odd priorities?

The United States called on Thursday for states to voluntarily restrict the use of anti-vehicle mines, which cause civilian casualties and hamper humanitarian work.

But together with Russia, China and other military powers, it was holding out against any move at a Geneva weapons conference to open negotiations on curbing cluster bombs, which take a big civilian toll, anti-mine activists said.

To summarize:

1. Blowing up vehicles = BAD
2. Blowing up innocent civilians = GOOD

There's some logic for ya.

.

The Rules Of The Game

In a Christian Science Monitor op-ed, Scott Holcomb and Mark Ribbing argue that since warfare has changed over the last fifty years the rules that are supposed to govern it should change as well and that the United States should take the lead in this effort. Putting aside the obvious fact that the current White House has no interest in following any rules (and that they have zero credibility on the subject) the idea might be worth thinking about.

That said, Holcomb and Ribbing trip over their own shoelaces with this:

Geneva's provisions state that POWs are obligated only to inform their captors of their name, rank, serial number, and date of birth, and that "[N]o physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." In addition, POWs must be released "without delay after the cessation of active hostilities."

Such rules for the treatment of POWs present some obvious problems when dealing with suspected terrorists. In order to unearth future terrorist actions, governments need to learn a bit more from these prisoners than name and birthdate. [Emphasis added.]

This makes no sense. It can just as easily be said that to unearth an enemy army's plan for attack we need to learn a bit more than name and birthdate. Indeed, a military defeat might well be more threatening to a nation than any terrorist attack. Maybe there are good reasons to revisit the "rules of war" but this sure isn't one of them.

.

Escalation?

WaPo:

The Army's National Guard and Reserve are bracing for possible new and accelerated call-ups, spurred by high demand for U.S. troops in Iraq, that leaders caution could undermine the citizen-soldier force as it struggles to rebuild.

[...]

Next year, the number of Army Guard soldiers providing security in Iraq will surge to more than 6,000 in about 50 companies, compared with 20 companies two years ago, Guard officials said. "We thought we'd see a downturn in operational tempo, but that hasn't happened," said one official.

A more sweeping policy shift is under consideration that would allow the Pentagon to launch a new wave of involuntary mobilizations of the reserves, as a growing proportion of Guard and Reserve soldiers are nearing a 24-month limit on time deployed, they said. Army officials said no decision had been made on the politically sensitive topic but that serious deliberations will unfold in the coming months.

This is what Republican control of the White House and Congress has brought us.

You know what to do tomorrow.

.

Cut And Run

Rat. Sinking ship.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the plainspoken dealmaker and Republican insider who has won praise and criticism for attempts to broker Sunni political participation in Iraq's fragile government, is likely to quit his post as U.S. ambassador in Baghdad in the coming months, a senior Bush administration official said Monday.

[Via Think Progress.]

.

*This* Is The Issue

America-haters run the place:

BAGHDAD, Oct. 31 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki demanded the removal of American checkpoints from the streets of Baghdad on Tuesday, in what appeared to be his latest and boldest gambit in an increasingly tense struggle for more independence from his American protectors.

Mr. Maliki’s public declaration seemed at first to catch American commanders off guard. But by nightfall, American troops had abandoned all the positions in eastern and central Baghdad that they had set up last week with Iraqi forces as part of a search for a missing American soldier. The checkpoints had snarled traffic and disrupted daily life and commerce throughout the eastern part of the city.

The language of the declaration, which implied that Mr. Maliki had the power to command American forces, seemed to overstep his authority and to be aimed at placating his Shiite constituency. [Emphasis added.]

George W. Bush says to American soldiers: You're on your own, boy and girls.

.

*This* Is The Issue

NYT:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.

A one-page slide shown at the Oct. 18 briefing provides a rare glimpse into how the military command that oversees the war is trying to track its trajectory, particularly in terms of sectarian fighting.

The slide includes a color-coded bar chart that is used to illustrate an “Index of Civil Conflict.” It shows a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracks a further worsening this month despite a concerted American push to tamp down the violence in Baghdad.

.

Another Comma

P-G:

The flag-draped casket of Army Spc. Russell Culbertson was removed from a hearse shortly before a funeral at Bethany Presbyterian Church. Spc. Culbertson received a final salute yesterday, 10 days after he was killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, Iraq. He was 22.

Soldiers carried his coffin into Bethany Presbyterian Church in Bridgeville. Vietnam veterans who assembled outside held U.S. flags. One man, not a flag bearer, hunched over and cried.

Spc. Culbertson, of Lone Pine in Washington County, was a 2003 graduate of Trinity High School and a tank gunner with the 4th Infantry Division.

Three other soldiers were killed with him in the Oct. 17 explosion. They included a second man from Pennsylvania, 2nd Lt. Christopher E. Loudon, 23, of Brockport in Elk County.

.

This Can't Be Good

Via Nicole Belle at C&L, the US is conducting naval exercises in the near Iran:

There is a massive concentration of US naval power in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Two US naval strike groups are deployed: USS Enterprise, and USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group. The naval strike groups have been assigned to fighting the "global war on terrorism."

[...]

Concurrent with ths concentration of US Naval power, the US is also involved in military exercises in the Persian Gulf, which consists in "interdicting ships in the Gulf carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles"

The exercise is taking place as the United States and other major powers are considering sanctions including possible interdiction of ships on North Korea, following a reported nuclear test, and on Iran, which has defied a U.N. Security Council mandate to stop enriching uranium.

The exercise, set for Oct. 31, is the 25th to be organized under the U.S.-led 66-member Proliferation Security Initiative and the first to be based in the Gulf near Bahrain, across from Iran, the officials said.
A senior U.S. official insisted the exercise is not aimed specifically at Iran, although it reinforces a U.S. strategy aimed at strengthening America’s ties with states in the Gulf, where Tehran and Washington are competing for influence"

.

Wednesday Boot

This morning Iran is tuggin' at Max's brain. Negotiations are useless. Invasion is impossible. So what's left? Proxy war!

NOW THAT WE'VE failed to stop North Korea from going nuclear, it's all the more imperative to prevent Iran, another member of the "axis of evil," from going down the same route.

But how? The approach that failed with North Korea — endless negotiations backed by feeble sanctions and rhetorical bluster — isn't likely to be any more successful with Iran.

Should I point out that the United States hasn't really engaged in negotiations with North Korea?

There are at least two alternatives that should be seriously considered: "soft" and "hard" approaches to regime change.

The soft line would be to offer Iran a grand bargain: If you verifiably suspend your nuclear program and end support for terrorism (primarily in Lebanon and Iraq), the U.S. will lift sanctions, reestablish diplomatic relations and back Iran's entry into the World Trade Organization. As part of this deal, the U.S. could pledge to not use force to overthrow the Iranian regime, but we would most assuredly not give up peaceful support of Iranian democrats. In fact, by establishing an embassy in Tehran and opening up more cultural and economic links with the West, we might be able to do more to foster regime change than by continuing to try to isolate the mullahs.

Okay, this isn't a terrible suggestion, although I doubt that we'd be too happy if a foreign power started to fund, "peacefully," American political movements. Still, coming from Max this isn't bad.

This is the preferred strategy of leading Iranian dissidents such as Akbar Ganji, who was released from prison earlier this year after a hunger strike. Iranian liberals believe that such a gambit would put Iran's government on the defensive because most Iranians want greater foreign investment and more access to the outside world. This approach may be worth trying, if only to score points with the Iranian public and Washington's allies, but such a deal is unlikely to be accepted by the hard-liners in Tehran. They don't want to give up the "Great Satan" as a scapegoat for all the ills of their society.

Oh. So much for that, then.

Hence we need to think about a tougher approach to regime change. The U.S. already has increased aid for the promotion of democracy in Iran, from $3 million in 2005 to $76 million in the just-concluded fiscal year. If we're serious, we need to spend much more, and we need to consider the possibility of going beyond peaceful measures to foment change. An American invasion is out of the question. But perhaps we could do to Iran what the Iranians are doing to us in Iraq, where they are funneling weapons and money to militias that are killing our soldiers.

This doesn't sound good.

There also are a number of opposition groups that span the ethnic spectrum. Workers, women's groups and students have staged peaceful demonstrations to protest various grievances. The Mujahedin Khalq, a leftist political cult, mounted attacks on Iran in the 1980s and 1990s from bases in Iraq. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, American troops have detained thousands of its activists. They could easily be set loose to make trouble across the border.

This option has a lot of drawbacks. It's not clear that, even with massive U.S. support, we could mobilize an active insurgency. And, even if we did, our support could backfire and unite the Iranian people around their regime. But then this also would be a likely consequence of airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, which would be the only serious option left once the current Bush administration policy of half-hearted multilateral negotiations backed by toothless U.N. resolutions fails. (Or, rather, once its failure can no longer be denied.)

A proxy war could backfire? Shocking! Unfortunately, Max doesn't say what we should do if (when) his proxy war backfires. Back off? Full scale war? It's little questions like these that matter. Apparently Max isn't up to the serious brain-storming to which these questions would lead as he concludes limply:

The options outlined here aren't palatable to major political constituencies in the United States — conservatives disdain the soft line; liberals the hard line. But we can't let political orthodoxy stand in the way of stopping another rogue regime from going nuclear.

Poor Max. A whole column to write and not a coherent thought in his mind. It's tough out there for a Neocon.

.

Oooo-kay

In an op-ed arguing that we should stay the course in Iraq Frederick W. Kagan reaches a whole new level of idiocy:

It is also worth keeping in mind that as indirect consequences of America's defeat in Vietnam, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Sandinistas seized power in Nicaragua and Ayatollah Khomeini seized Tehran and American hostages. The "decent interval" between our withdrawal and the collapse of South Vietnam didn't help. Neither will the implausible deniability the Pentagon is now trying to establish in Iraq.

That the loss of the war in Vietnam led to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran is not only new but wholly asinine. Even the discredited "Domino Theory" can't account for this. (It's also arguable that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had more to do with the Iranian revolution than Vietnam but I'll let that pass.)

Maybe Fred should read a little history and familiarize himself with Mohammed Mossadegh.

---

ADDED: Kevin Drum on the banality of Fred.

.

The Dog Ate My NIE

The National Intelligence Estimate completed in April and buried until the New York Times unearthed it last month was actually delayed because...

As Ware explained it, the Iraq terror NIE came to the committee in late April, but did not get scanned because of the malfunction. Then, after the equipment was working again in late April, the document -- which contradicted key aspects of Bush administration policy and rhetoric -- sat unnoticed in a "backlog," along with other classified documents awaiting the committee's consideration, until the New York Times revealed its conclusions in late September.

There isn't a schoolteacher in the world who would buy that excuse.

.

Stay The Course

So much for that:

President Bush and his aides are annoyed that people keep misinterpreting his Iraq policy as "stay the course." A complete distortion, they say. "That is not a stay-the-course policy," White House press secretary Tony Snow declared yesterday.

Where would anyone have gotten that idea? Well, maybe from Bush.

"We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed," he said in Salt Lake City in August.

"We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course," he said in Milwaukee in July.

"I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed," he said after returning from Baghdad in June.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

---

ADDED: Maria at 2PJ has a video of Stay the Course greatest hits.

.

Intentionally Ignorant

Rove:

For instance, he needled congressional Democrats for voting against a GOP plan to try terrorist suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Many Democrats said the plan violated basic rights, but Rove rejected that. "You need to have the ability to try these people without worrying about the ACLU showing up saying, 'Wait a minute, did you Mirandize them when you found them on the battlefield,' " he said. "With all due respect, I don't happen to remember that in World War II, that when we captured Nazis and Japanese and took them to camps, that the first thing we did was provide them legal aid."

That's because they were prisoners of war, you mendacious asshole. When you go and invent a new term, "enemy combatant", a concept never before heard, you're going to get some people asking questions.

But if you classified them as prisoners of war then you'd have to follow those quaint Geneva Conventions, wouldn't you? And that would undermine the President-as-Monarch theory.

It's tough out there for Karl.

.

He Must Be Drinking Again

Our Glorious Leader™:

Setting the stage for a possible announcement, the White House insisted that all that is in question is a change in tactics, not a strategy overhaul.

"The last few weeks have been rough for our troops in Iraq, and for the Iraqi people," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "The fighting is difficult, but our nation has seen difficult fights before. In World War II and the Cold War, earlier generations of Americans sacrificed so that we can live in freedom. This generation will do its duty as well."

At any rate, whatever changes are in store they will be mostly cosmetic. He has no intention of leaving Iraq. This past August:

THE PRESIDENT: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror.It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

This is one time we should take him at his word. His entire history is of a spoiled child who doesn't give up until he gets what he wants. That he isn't going to get what he wants is irrelevant. Of course, he also has a history of just walking away from difficult situations and letting others clean up the mess but his attitude of being his god's right hand in this case probably precludes that.

Should the Democrats take the House and the Senate next month the fact is there is little they can do to stop the war. Simply cutting off funding isn't going to happen; that would kill thousands of US troops. Impeachment and conviction, however deserved, are unlikely to come about unless there are suprising new revelations about the Administration's conduct (a possibility).

In short, I don't think we're going to be leaving any time before 2009.

.

Good Question

LTE:

When the U.S. death toll in Iraq equals that of 9/11, will a national day of mourning be proclaimed?

BERJE SAMUELIAN
Newport Beach

.

It's Not A Civil War

Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized total control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by one of the country’s powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said.

Even Vice-President Last Throes is backtracking:

TIME: Mr. Vice President, if you had to take back any one thing you'd said about Iraq, what would it be?

CHENEY: I expressed the sentiment some time ago that I thought we were over the hump in terms of violence, I think that was premature. I thought the elections would have created that environment. And it hasn't happened yet. [...]

And to think it took three years for him to figure this out.

.

Wrong Is Right

Jonah "Doughy Pantload" Goldberg has decided that the Iraq war was a mistake but had to be done just to show damn dirty hippies:

The Iraq war was a mistake.

I know, I know. But I've never said it before. And I don't enjoy saying it now. I'm sure that to the antiwar crowd this is too little, too late, and that's fine because I'm not joining their ranks anyway.

In the dumbed-down debate we're having, there are only two sides: Pro-war and antiwar. This is silly. First, very few folks who favored the Iraq invasion are abstractly pro-war. Second, the antiwar types aren't really pacifists. They favor military intervention when it comes to stopping genocide in Darfur or starvation in Somalia or doing whatever that was President Clinton did in Haiti. In other words, their objection isn't to war per se. It's to wars that advance U.S. interests (or, allegedly, President Bush's or Israel's or ExxonMobil's interests). I must confess that one of the things that made me reluctant to conclude that the Iraq war was a mistake was my general distaste for the shabbiness of the arguments on the antiwar side.

[...]

Those who say that it's not the central front in the war on terror are in a worse state of denial than they think Bush is in. Of course it's the central front in the war on terror. That it has become so is a valid criticism of Bush, but it's also strong reason for seeing our Iraqi intervention through. If we pull out precipitously, jihadism will open a franchise in Iraq and gain steam around the world, and the U.S. will be weakened.

Say, Jonah, doesn't it follow logically that new leadership is necessary if - as you want - there is to be any hope of salvaging this situation? When someone is so consistently wrong about something for years isn't it a good idea to, y'know, turn to others for ideas?

Just a thought.

.

Remember Iraq?

Thanks, George:

At least 12 U.S. troops were killed during a 48-hour period ending Wednesday, putting October on track to be the deadliest month for Americans in Iraq since Marines stormed insurgent-controlled Fallouja in November 2004.

The latest surge in attacks on American military personnel has claimed the lives of 71 troops so far this month, and comes as a sharp rise in civil warfare between Iraq's Shiite and Sunni sects has left hundreds dead over the last week, including at least 43 Wednesday.

[...]

"It breaks my heart, because behind every casualty is somebody with tears in their eyes," Bush added.

Just shut the fuck up you evil bastard.

.