Blog Title: American Entropy

Links for 2008-03-18 [del.icio.us]

• Sunnis Boycott Iraq Reconciliation Event
  [Progress?] Iraq's main Sunni bloc boycotted a conference Tuesday aimed at reconciling the nation's sectarian groups, a sign of the deep schisms still facing this country. Members of the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front said they would not participate in the

Links for 2008-03-14 [del.icio.us]

• Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress'
  Pretty sure David "pants on fire" petraeus said that the Iraqi gov't was using the surge to progress... Must be time to face congress again.

Links for 2008-03-12 [del.icio.us]

• Data on violence point to stalemate in Iraq
  Newly declassified statistics on the frequency of insurgent attacks in Iraq suggest that after major security gains last fall in the wake of an American troop increase, the conflict has drifted into at least a temporary stalemate, with levels of violence

Links for 2008-03-07 [del.icio.us]

• McCain's Consistent Folly on Iraq
  McCain portrays himself as uniquely clear-eyed about the war. In fact, those eyes have often been full of stars.

Links for 2008-02-27 [del.icio.us]

• Iraqi Council Strikes Down Key Law
  ...a major setback to U.S.-backed efforts to promote national reconciliation. The ruling came despite a reported last-minute telephone call by Vice President Dick Cheney to the main holdout on the three-member panel, which has to sign off on laws passed b

Links for 2008-02-21 [del.icio.us]

• Religious hard-liners out in Pakistan
  voters in turbulent North West Frontier Province, which borders Afghanistan, gave their support to secular parties that promised to pave the streets, create jobs and bring peace through dialogue and economic incentives to the extremists. That may conflict

Links for 2008-02-20 [del.icio.us]

• For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
  A female lobbyist had been turning up with McCain at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from h
• US: Bombers Didn't Have Down Syndrome
  The U.S. military said Wednesday that two women used as suicide bombers in attacks earlier this month had undergone psychiatric treatment but there is no indication they had Down syndrome as Iraqi and U.S. officials initially had claimed.

SC Dem Debate Live Thread

Has been started here...

and here...

Myrtle Beach Debate II

So I'm in the press filing center waiting to eat our free meal. I'm surrounded by the "liberal media" if you listen to the goofball behind me. An anti-Hillary guy is running around here trying to push the Central America-CIA-cocaine connection... Anyway.

This debate is crucial. The polls predict an Obama win Saturday but you have to remember New Hampshire. The most recent polls have Obama at around 45%, Hillary in the 30s and Edwards in the teens. Grain of salt. I'd be interested in a poll of people in SC that are undecided going into this debate and the primary.

I personally am hoping Obama does well. I saw him first as an intern at the Center for America Progress and was impressed. since then he grew on me. The fact that he did not vote for the authorization to use force on/in Iraq all but wins him my vote. But the idea of another Clinton presidency scares me. I'm tired of Bush and Clintons running our country. We had the end of Reagan which was basically a H. W. Bush administration due to Reagan's age. Then H. W. Bush. Then Clinton. Then W. Bush (less than a year left in that disaster. Thank you very much Supreme Court). So you see, this can't continue... imho.

Not much to say now. It's still cold. Tonight, instead of trying to cover this debate as a live blog (plenty are doing that), I'm going to try to capture the essence of what the press go through especially the spin room. I've got a camera but a slow laptop computer, so I'll try to put video up tonight but might wait till tomorrow so I can use a quicker desktop (render times are a bitch!). Not to mention I'll be doing my 9 to 5 as well and that, of course, takes priority.

More later, enjoy the debate.

The Democratic Primary Debate in Myrtle Beach, SC

As I indicated a few days ago, I'm working the SC Democratic Debate with SCETV and will be doing some blogging along the way...

First things I noticed this morning is how different this is when compared to the first SC debate I covered (here is the first post from that debate). For one thing the world will be watching as this is the last debate in SC before the Democratic Primary this coming Saturday. Another is the weather. It's nice here. Sunny, beautiful clear blue sky. And near freezing.

The candidates should be used to this considering Iowa and New Hampshire's weather this time of the year, but I'm sure they were hoping for some warmer weather as a break. Well they aren't going to get it. It's cold here. Standing water is frozen. Coats are mandatory.

So far I've only picked up our credentials and visited the debate hall. This event is being held in the Myrtle Beach tourist-trap known as Broadway on the Beach. Along 17 near where Planet Hollywood is. The press room is across the street in the Phillips Seafood restaurant. The security here is already much more intense. And the ground troops for the three candidates (especially Clinton and Edwards) are out in force putting up signs, et cetera. (BTW- What is it with the signs? Does anyone know anyone who votes on account of a yard sign?).

Myrtle Beach has a sand sculpture outside of the Palace Theater (the debate hall) that's pretty interesting (I'll have some specs on that soon). A lot of work to put in to it... at least it's not going to rain... But the faces (of Sens. Clyburn (D-SC) and the candidates Clinton, Obama and Edwards) are incredibly goofy. Especially John Edwards... I tried to capture this in the video but the sculpture was surrounded by near freezing puddles of water, the sun was in an awful place and I'm going totally hand-held. My apologies in advance but have a look.

here's a photo for now... Video soon, I hope. Video below.

More later....

Another Republican aiding and abetting the enemy?

This is yet one more instance in which a Republican operative or politician is accused of supporting terrorist activities. First it was Yasith Chhun, a member of and fund raiser for the Cambodian Freedom Fighters. The CFF is designated a terrorist organization by the State Department and Chhun is charged with "attempting to kill the prime minister, attack government buildings and launch small-scale attacks on karaoke bars and fuel depots" in order to destabilize the Cambodian government. Chhun also raised $6,550 for the National Republican Congressional Committee and had a role on the NRCC Business Advisory Council.

Then there's the case of Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari. This individual was arrested in February 2007 for terrorism financing and material support of terrorism. He was also a NRCC fund raiser and a lifetime member of the National Republican Senate Committee's Inner Circle. (Read more here and here.) Ali Alishtari raised $15,000 for the Republican party in the 2000s, none of that money has been returned or donated pending a conviction. He maintains that he was in it for the money not the "cause."

Now we have Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark D. Siljander, who has been indicted in federal court for alleged ties to a charity that sent money to suspected Islamic terrorists.

The WaPo reports:

The indictment alleges that he lied to the FBI about his work on behalf of the Islamic American Relief Agency, which the Treasury Department designated as a terrorist organization in 2004.

...

The charity, which was based in Columbia, Mo., allegedly paid Siljander $50,000 in March 2004 to lobby the Senate Finance Committee in an attempt to be kept off a list of terrorist organizations. Senate records indicate that Siljander has not been registered as a lobbyist since 1998.

According to the indictment, the money was stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development, and Siljander lied to federal agents about his role.

If this is the foreign policy gravitas the Republicans claim to have over the Democrats then the United States will be even safer if/when the Democrats get a firm control of DC.

Republican-voting squirrel-eating truck drivers

Well Mike Huckabee may be a very spiritual guy and a potential Republican presidential candidate but he has at least two other contenders in his party with a legitimate bead on the nomination as well and maybe more in the coming weeks. This includes South Carolina.

For the most part the religious right loves him. There are many reasons for this including the Baptist Minister card and the Ayatollah-esque proclamation to amend the Constitution to fit his impressions of what "God's standards". These points indicate that he'll do well in SC Saturday. To be sure, someone, on his behalf, started push-polling SC voters and criticizing Huck's rivals.

One would hope citizens in SC have learned to see through such tactics (which SC law prohibits, by the way). Or perhaps people will consider that these tactics are illegal and hold that against the Huck-ster. I'm not holding my breath.

But none of this really matters. SC is Huck territory, according to Huck:

"South Carolina's a great place for me. I mean, I know how to eat grits and speak the language. We even know how to talk about eating fried squirrel and stuff like that, so we're on the same wavelength." [start @ 1:40]

What? People brag about eating fried squirrel?

He continues:

"When I was in college, we used to take a popcorn popper, because that was the only thing they would let us use in the dorm, and we would fry squirrels in a popcorn popper in the dorm room." [start @ 1:55]

...

I'm the only guy that's just getting hammered from some of these special interest groups. And I think that'll turn for me and against some of these folks, because it's pretty obvious... There's just an anxiety that exists in the Washington power circles about our candidacy. ... Truck drivers know why they're voting for Mike Huckabee ... and that's why I'm convinced we're going to win." [start @ 3:25]

Watch the full clip here:



There you have it. If SC is a state full of squirrel-eating truck drivers then it's a lock for Huck.

I don't know who looks worse here, Huckabee or South Carolina?

(h/t Raw Story)

Blowback: Once in Pakistan. Twice in Pakistan. Next from Iraq?

I'm not the first one to suggest that the so-called "Anbar Awakening" is precisely the type of policy that invites blowback (read here for more about blowback) and I won't be the last.

Time will tell if the Awakening is as bad a move as many believe it is. Don' get me wrong, it's an improvment but is it thought out? One of the big problems with this administration is that is lives in the present. It wants only to look good now and doesn't care about consider what will happen down the road (long or short). It used to be that they could spin their error around using the media and their devotees like Fox News and conservative bloggers. now they'll just pass it along to the next administration.

Who ever the next president is will have plenty to deal with coming out of Iraq.

Retuning to blowback, this NYT article highlights one point: Blowback is not an American phenomon.

Here's a snip:

Pakistan’s premier military intelligence agency has lost control of some of the networks of Pakistani militants it has nurtured since the 1980s, and is now suffering the violent blowback of that policy, two former senior intelligence officials and other officials close to the agency say.

As the military has moved against them, the militants have turned on their former handlers, the officials said. Joining with other extremist groups, they have battled Pakistani security forces and helped militants carry out a record number of suicide attacks last year, including some aimed directly at army and intelligence units as well as prominent political figures, possibly even Benazir Bhutto.

Makes you wonder if one day, 15 to 30 years down the road, there will be a 9/11-esque attack with roots in the Awakening. Much like 9/11 had root in our occupation of Saudi Arabia in 1990.

I hope the change that is in the air surrounding the 2008 general elections will apply to foreign policy.

Photos: Barack Obama visits the College

I'm a bit late on this but here are some pics I snapped while filming the recent visit by Senator and presidential candidate-hopeful Barack Obama to the College of Charleston (full video at the Bully Pulpit website).

If you're interested, here are some photos from the July Democratic debate and the Citadel in Charleston: Pre-debate, Part I, Part II and Part III.

On that note. There is a good possibility that I'll be at the next Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach a week from now. Stay tuned...

Baghdad, Iraq: The City of Sectarian Lights

AP:

Strings of bulbs festooning the Imam Kazim shrine's four majestic minarets light up the sky over Baghdad's Shiite Kazimiyah neighborhood, attracting thousands of nighttime worshippers.

Coffee houses and restaurants are packed with customers along nearby streets, where turbaned clerics, chador-clad women and families buy furniture, toys and clothes in teeming shops. The district's gold market, the largest in the city, does brisk business until well after dusk.

But a drive from Kazimiyah over an unlit Tigris River bridge into Azamiyah, a Sunni stronghold, reveals only darkness and no signs of life along the main road. What nightlife does exist is confined to a walled area of about two square miles heavily patrolled by U.S. troops. One glaring exception: Kasrah, a Shiite enclave, with its lively outdoor market and coffee houses.

Night is the time when the Shiite dominance of the capital becomes most apparent following the sectarian "battle of Baghdad," which displaced tens of thousands of Sunnis and reshaped a city where the two sects had lived in relative peace.

A city divided. Where there are Shiites, there's normalcy. In Sunni sections... a lifeless shell of the past.

Once upon a time, any light in this city was progress. But the way it is now, you have to wonder where this progress is taking us.

My bet we'll find out sometime after the President retreats to Texas a little over a year from now.

al Maliki on political reconciliation and benchmarks

Over the past week or so I've written about the supposed success of Bush's surge strategy. In reality the strategy to facilitate political reconciliation has largely failed, while the tactic of placing more troops between a civil war has been moderately successful. Wow! Who would have thought that? The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) knows this and has said as much recently (.pdf):

U.S. efforts lack strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles, and performance measures. The U.S. strategy for victory in Iraq partially identifies the agencies responsible for implementing key aspects of the strategy and does not fully address how the United States would integrate its goals with those of the Iraqis and the international community. U.S. efforts to develop Iraqi ministry capability lack an overall strategy... The weaknesses in U.S. strategic planning are compounded by the Iraqi government’s lack of integrated strategic planning in its critical energy sector. (p.2)
...
The Iraqi government continues to make limited progress in meeting eight legislative benchmarks intended to promote national reconciliation. As of October 25, 2007, the Iraqi government had met one legislative benchmark and partially met another. (p. 7)

I'd like to return to a post of mine from February to highlight the point that this has always been the number one issue:

...it seems that until you have an actual plan that has some chance of success (by saying this, I’m stating that I believe that if we could muster enough man power to match the recommendations of the counterinsurgency manual, then we would be looking at a statistical chance of military success; at least one worth looking into provided we reassess what the final result in Iraq will look like and lose the rose-colored glasses)... . NO war has ever had the characteristic of total and complete victory or perfection... . The fundamental problem is that no level of military successes will ever win this war. There has to be political progress and the likelihood of that happening is slim, even with zero or a million troops in Iraq.

The Democrats know this but are repeatedly cowed into submission by Republican politicians and conservative pundits (which is a sign of a chronic flaw on their behalf).

What is most striking to me is how clear this is to to the Shiite political parties in Iraq. It's been quite clear for some time now that the Shiite government has abandoned the goals set for them by the president and the Congress. Now the PM al Maliki is on record saying not only is it not his responsibility to meet these benchmarks but that a large portion of them have indeed been met. Marc Lynch observes:

Friday, [al Maliki] elaborated on his views of the current Iraqi political scene in a very intriguing, and frankly troubling, interview with al-Arabiya (I couldn't find any English-language mentions of it at all via Google News, sorry). The interview did not break any particularly new ground, but it did make one thing very clear: do not expect Maliki to pursue seriously any moves towards national reconciliation, defined in terms of legislation at the national level or agreements with Sunni political parties. The deadlock at the national political level, so clear at the time of the Petraeus-Crocker hearings in September, will not end any time soon.
...
Maliki argued on al-Arabiya that Iraqi national reconciliation has not only already been achieved, it is "strong and stable and not fragile". There is no civil war in Iraq, or even any real sectarian conflict anymore - the sectarian hatreds incited by "some" in the past have been overcome. He made clear that he does not equate national reconciliation with political progress at the national level: "I think that national reconciliation will come about not as some understand it, as a reconciliation with this political party governed by an ideology or a specific mentality." Real national reconciliation, to Maliki, takes place at the local level, when "you can go into the street and meet with a Sunni in Shia areas or with a Shia in Sunni areas, where they live together once again." That, he suggests, has happened. The various Sunni awakenings demonstrate reconciliation at the local level, and their support for his national government. He claims that people who fled mixed Sunni-Shia areas are now returning (or are welcome to do so), and that the people now reject sectarianism in favor of national unity and his government. True, some politicians are still demanding reconciliation, but he dismisses them as "minor political parties" whose tiresome complaints now fall on deaf ears with the people. The attempt to unseat him last year by various political factions? An attempted coup against the political process by those (regrettably mainly Sunnis) who want to return the Baath Party to its monopoly on power.

Good Lord!

The only corner we've turned in Iraq is one that put right back where we were late last year. The only difference is were are all but arming the opposition Sunnis and Maliki's national government has quit the reconciliation business.

Hold on tight!

Brown (R-SC) condones Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark

I get letters, I write letters back. Here's a snippet of todays:

Dear Congressman Henry Brown, Jr.

I've just received and read your defense of shock-jock Rush Limbaugh -- a man with "strong ideological leanings" -- regarding his labeling of anti-war soldiers as "phony."

Your defense of the pundit is weak and, frankly, embarrassing (at least for your supporters). You claim Rush was speaking of Jesse MacBeth and not any number of soldiers who would question the policies of your party, our president and people who share "strong ideological leanings" such as your own. Well, that's what Fox News 'reported' (possibly stretching the meaning of that word past the max). When Rush first used the name Jesse MacBeth on the 26 September 2007 show, it was nearly 2 minutes after he used the phrase "phony soldiers." In several calls in subsequent minutes and days he continued to use his new attack rhetoric numerous times. For example, in a 28 September 2007 broadcast, Rush expanded his group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran, and your colleague, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp (who is currently serving in Iraq). These men are both anti-war and, therefore, to Rush and many sharing "strong ideological leanings" they are "phony soldiers". Finally, If Rush was talking about this one soldier -- Jesse MacBeth -- he would have been quoted as calling him a phony soldier since he is but a single man.

I don't accept your response nor do I appreciate your defense of a man such as Rush Limbaugh. He is no better than the folks at Move On who questioned the political intentions of a military general in a similarly inflammatory way. I'm embarrassed that you stooped to this level to protect such a man.

...

"Waterboarding is a torture technique – period"

Malcolm Nance, an adviser on terrorism to the Department of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, was a witness and supervisor to "hundreds" of waterboarding training exercises at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School. The practice of waterboarding, he concludes, "is a torture technique – period" noting that the practice does not simulate drowning but actually introduces water into the lungs.

The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

The practice Bush administration officials refuse to take responsibility for, despite praising its effects in the field, is thought of by Nance as "controlled death."

Senator Graham's pea-soup-colored glasses

Nearly two months ago South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham made the presumptuous projection that "[w]ithin the next weeks, not months, there will be a major breakthrough on the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation." Unfortunately Graham's prediction was incorrect.

Fast-forward seven weeks to the recently released Government Accountability Office report which notes that legislation promoting political reconciliation between disparate Iraqi sects still has not been passed. Additionally, the report concludes the Iraqi government has not taken advantage of the lull in violence and that hope was dwindling "for achieving current U.S. security, political and economic goals in Iraq."

While US politicians and pundits make wild predictions and the US military works hard to make them come reality, senior Iraqi politicians are scoffing at the very idea of political reconciliation. Iraqi press observer Marc Lynch notes that Prime Minister al-Maliki recently "mocked calls for national reconciliation and dismissed those calling for such reconciliation as conspirators."

Speaking of political reconciliation in Iraq...

Marc Lynch passes along this discouraging, though not surprising, snippet from the Iraqi press:

Speaking of exposed nerves, the Iraqi newspaper al-Zaman reported yesterday that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki mocked calls for national reconciliation and dismissed those calling for such reconciliation as conspirators. Yes, I anticipate rapid progress on the national reconciliation front. What could possibly go wrong?

Indeed...

Death is down in Iraq but the surge is still failing

It's truelly painful to witness.

Our conservative politicians, desperate for something to distract the public from the horrendous reality that is the Republican party, have recoalesced into the shortsighted idiots that caused the occupation of Iraq back in 2002-2003... and the media in large part is right there with them. We have a few months of below average violence and we're on the cusp of victory in Iraq? What planet are you people on? Truth is we've done little there since January and the Iraqis have done less.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today frames this truism nicely. We've surged and therefore there should be less violence (check!) and political reconciliation (ehhhh!). Who in their right mind would begin arguing that the surge has been a success at this point. To me, it's pretty obvious that we're stuck back in January at the latest.

I've heard some conservatives claim that the Democrats will "change their minds" about Iraq. They may, but not because the 'we're winning' claim is correct, but because that's what most Democrats do: The majority of them are weak. A strong Democrat, a progressive Democrat, would take the argument and beat the offending conservative over the head with it. The point of the surge was to secure a portion of Iraq to allow for political reconciliation. There has been absolutely nothing on this point of reconciliation, period. Not even a hint. Therefore the surge is failing. Plenty on action condemning some of our unaccountable mercenaries (which should be our responsibilities), but none on reconciliation. That's a pretty big point.

An appropriate reading of the mentioned GAO goes like this:

The U.S. and Iraqi governments have failed to take advantage of a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq, ... prospects [are] waning "for achieving current U.S. security, political and economic goals in Iraq."

Iraqi leaders have not passed legislation to foster reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and sectarian groups still retain control of ministries and divide Iraqi security forces...

Moreover, the Bush administration's efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq are plagued by weak planning, a lack of coordination with the Iraqi government and among U.S. agencies, and an absence of detailed information on "the current and future costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq,"...

"U.S. efforts lack strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles and performance measures," ...

The findings raise questions about whether the increase of U.S. troops that began last February will ultimately achieve the goal of giving Iraqi political leaders enough of a respite from violence that that they can work to resolve Iraq's many problems.

:::

This is a time for serious assessment of the problems at hand, and our leaders and our media are being feed numbers to claim progress? We were told there would be legislation, words, agreements, photo ops. We haven't got much time left to hold the lid on Iraq. To claim victory is right around the corner is to assume the word victory will be redefined as "still stuck in the same place we were last year" by March '08.

[UPDATE] Marc Lynch shows concern about the ridiculousness of all this in a recent post:

Body counts are only one small part of a much larger puzzle. What I want to know is not the day to day casualty trends, or good news stories from some carefully selected hamlet, or the latest assassination of an Awakening shaykh. I want to know: does the devolution to the local level make strategic sense, even if it reaps short-term tactical sense? Towards what endpoint are the tactics leading? Do we want to see a unified Iraq with a sustainable political accord - the official goal of American policy, as Undersecretary of State Nick Burns reminded the DACOR audience yesterday? If so, are American political and military tactics encouraging or discouraging such an outcome? Those are questions that we could be discussing in this moment of relative American political respite, but there's really not much of it (a moment of self-criticism here: I suppose I should give credit to the Biden partition/federalism resolution effort, even though I strongly disagreed with it, for at least trying to raise such issues.)

Maybe that's because there is no possible winning strategy anymore, just better or worse tactics leading nowhere in particular. I understand the logic of the bottom-up reconciliation strategy quite well, thanks. I just see no evidence whatsoever that it is working: whether public opinion surveys, continuing refugee flows, or sectarian and confrontational political discourse. Yes, Ammar al-Hakim went to Ramadi, which is encouraging - but his mission failed... and if you look at what he was actually trying to sell to the Sunnis, you'd be less encouraged than some people have been by the atmospherics. Yes, Tareq al-Hashemi went to Sistani with his National Compact, but the Compact has gone nowhere. And so on. The national political level remains completely deadlocked, and the politicians seem to have lost whatever sense of urgency they felt back in August and September. And all of those politicians behave according to the logic of moral hazard that the US has created - since the Bush administration can't credibly threaten to escalate and won't threaten to withdraw, it has no leverage over any of them while protecting them from the consequences of their decisions. And even if those politicians did somehow magically come to agreement, their ability to deliver on any such agreement declines by the day.

Cheney joining Colbert as president of SC?

The Confederate flag issue. Not a big deal to me. I understand the historical and cultural context in which it exists. I'm fine with South Carolinians looking intolerant with that flag on their trucks. I'm fine with the South in general doing the same. It's a free country. I see it as a necessary reminder of who won the Civil War rather than a historical and cultural relic. But for a man who hails from Union territory (Nebraska and Wyoming) to hunt at club in upstate New York (a union state) to that actively embraces that symbol is pretty appalling. And it's probably good politics here in the South. Maybe he's planning to be Colbert's running mate.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week at the CofC

In you case you didn't know, this week-- the 22 through 26 of October--is Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week here at the College of Charleston and nationwide. This effort is being pushed by none other than David Horowitz, Ann Coulter and others, will crawl out to spew there venom.

According to the main site for this project, College of Charleston is on the list of hundreds of schools taking part. So be on the lookout for throngs of college students on the streets in what has been billed as the "biggest conservative campus protest ever."

Biggest ever? I guess conservatives don't protest much, but that makes sense. I mean who has time to protest when your engaging in a sodomy session with you frat brothers on your $6,000 leather couch. Or when your already running late for your rat-dogs nail appointment due to the 30 minutes it took to fill your ginourmous SUV with petrol (thanks mommy!). The only reason I've heard of this is because I get a kick out of wing-nuttery.

Of course this could all be a big failure. I mean, what if this was all being overblown? I doubt it though. They're all probably at Kinkos as I type making flyers, posters and memorizing chants.

If you happen to run into one of these racist(sorry) Americans, here's a good fact sheet to help with your conversation. Give it to them in small doses, CofC conservatives have a hard time thinking for themselves.

The Return of the X-Article and the 'War on Terror'

Back in August I highlighted an op-ed that explored a strategy meant for the Cold War that could be applied usefully to our current War on Terrorism. The op-ed author was Nick Thompson from Wired's Danger Room and the Cold war strategy (featured in the popular X-Article) is now known tho be the work of George 'X' Kennan. I should reiterate here once again that this this op-ed, the article I'm going to mention briefly, this post or the post from August is advocating a "wait them out" strategy but rather a strategy that uses inherent weaknesses of extremist ideology against them rather than using policies that strengthen their ranks and confirm their propaganda.

This brings us to the 'return' of this policy prescription; this time in next months Foreign Affairs journal (via the WSJ). The author, the centrist Brookings Institutions senior US foreign policy wonk, Philip H. Gordon argues (much like Thompson and Kennan; summarized by WSJ's Robin Moroney)

...Islamic extremists will lose the way the U.S.S.R. did, with their ideology and tactics discredited and their erstwhile supporters deserting them. Mr. Gordon says this will occur as a result of disgust at Islamic militants’ use of violence against other Muslims, the economic failures of extreme Islamic regimes and a fear in the Islamic world, evidenced in polls, of having al Qaeda-led governments.
...
Focusing on completely eradicating terrorism rather than fostering its slow demise would drag the U.S. into precisely the costly wars abroad that Osama bin Laden wants the U.S. to fight. Mr. bin Laden and his ilk are unlikely to win in the long term in any case, says Mr. Gordon, but the war in Iraq will prolong the conflict as an effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda. The U.S. should instead focus on exploiting extremist Islam’s weak points as an ideology, using diplomacy, economic development and imprisoning terrorist leaders to bring about Islamic terrorism’s slow death.

Sound, rational, logical strategy the presidential contenders should consider and a market improvement to the neocon destabilization and paranoia campaign. Of course if your platform is running on the coattails of 9/11 then you might surround yourself with discredited pseudo-scholars. Right Mr. Giuliani?

Move Over Arctic, Greenland is Melting at a Record Pace

Numerous climatic events have come to our attention over the last several months in the Northern Polar Regions. The Arctic ice cap is melting at a rate that could make it disappear by the end of this century, or earlier. Late last year an island, once covered in ice, emerged off the coast of Greenland. While the Arctic ice cap will have little if any impact on sea level rise since it's full volume currently floats in the ocean and its displacement is already present, these melting trends may not be limited to the Arctic. That is why the emergence of a previously unknown island due to ice melt is alarming. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would cause "catastrophic consequences for low-lying countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives" and cities such as London, New Orleans and Los Angeles. In addition to sea level rise, the melting of the ice sheet could affect ocean circulation, global heat transfer and atmospheric circulation.

Late last month NASA released a study reporting

...that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average.
...
[The study] also confirmed that the melting index this year in lower altitude areas of Greenland, though not record breaking, was higher than average by 30 percent

The author of the study confirmed that potential consequences reach far beyond Greenland. "Aside from contributing to direct sea level rise, melting especially along the coast can speed up glaciers... The faster glaciers flow, the more water enters the ocean and potentially impacts sea level rise."

The newfound island once sequestered by ice is now accessible, but it may soon be submerged by the unchecked melt of the Greenland ice sheet.

Lindsey Graham's crystal ball... not so clear

On 7 September, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) predicted that "[w]ithin the next weeks, not months, there will be a major breakthrough on the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation" in Iraq. This encouraging pronouncement was made at a friendly gathering at the American Enterprise Institute.

Days later while questioning General Petraeus, Senator Graham laid out sobering reality in American blood and treasure the stay the course strategy would cost.

So you're saying to the Congress that you know that at least 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines are likely to be killed every month from now to July, that we're going to spend $9 billion a month of American taxpayer dollars, and when it's all said and done, we'll still have 100,000 people there.

In the wake of the Petraeus testimony earlier this month, Senator Graham backtracked from "weeks, not months" to multiple months declaring that if the Iraqis "can't do it in 90 days ... it means the major players don't want to."

Since Senator Graham's first prediction of imminent progress on 7 September, few steps forward have been taken while setbacks have filled the narrative. The Iraq oil law, a major benchmark in the reconciliation process, appears to be collapsing. A high-profile Sunni tribal leader central to the "Anbar Awakening" strategy was assassinated just ten days after meeting with President Bush in Anbar province. A pentagon report highlights a "notable turn for the worse" in Southern Iraq. The deteriorating conditions may force the British troops to return to the strategic southern city of Basra. The goal to hand over security in all 18 provinces to Iraqis (originally set for this November but in June was pushed back to next March) has been postponed again until next July. A recent Shiite-Sunni reconciliation meeting of top leaders was interrupted by suicide bomber leaving at least 25 dead and 40 wounded. In a recent meeting between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki, benchmark legislation like the new oil law and tempered de-Ba’athification measures were replaced with questions of Iraqi sovereignty relating to the actions of private military contractor Blackwater USA and the "illegal" detention of an Iranian national in Northern Iraq.

While what Lindsey Grahams crystal ball predicted in terms of political reconciliation was erroneous, he was right about two things: there have been 59 US military fatalities so far this month and the latest budget requests for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the largest since the 'war on terror' began six years ago.

Bush talks to world leaders

Blake Hounshell provides the narative:

Over the audio system here at U.N. headquarters, I just heard U.S. President George W. Bush greeting Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the U.N. This brief encounter, I have to say, confirmed all of my preconceived notions of how Bush interacts with other world leaders. Secretary Ban thanked Bush for attending last night's dinner, to which Bush responded brusquely, "My pleasure." U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad were a little more gracious, warmly thanking Ban for his hospitality. Perhaps realizing his goof, Bush chimed in with his own word of thanks, then blurted out, "The red snapper was delicious." He then went on to explain why he didn't stay for the whole event, citing an important meeting he had with his daughter, Jenna, who is getting married soon.

January 2009, this all changes....

And now we have our own re-education camps

In front of the VFW, our President bush said:

one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

We'll we've seen the killing fields of Fallujah, Baghdad and Kurdistan.

We've seen 21^st century version of boat people in the 2 million displaced Iraqis.

And now we have our very own re-education camps:

The U.S. military has introduced "religious enlightenment" and other education programs for Iraqi detainees, some of whom are as young as 11, Marine Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, the commander of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, said yesterday.

Stone said such efforts, aimed mainly at Iraqis who have been held for more than a year, are intended to "bend them back to our will" and are part of waging war in what he called "the battlefield of the mind." Most of the younger detainees are held in a facility that the military calls the "House of Wisdom."

Hearts and minds, stay the course, victory, return on progress, religious enlightenment .....

You people are fucking retarded.

By Bush's definition, the "surge" has failed

In George Bush's prime time address to the nation Thursday night he laid out the basic premise of of his escalation strategy in Iraq.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it.

So that's it, the Iraqis need to feel safe. And he's right. But he misses the point that the escalation has not made people feel safer. A recent poll points this out, Marc Lynch summarizes the findings:

...The BBC/ABC/NHK survey, conducted in all 19 provinces during August, finds that 70% of Iraqis believe that security has deteriorated in the areas covered by the US "surge", and 11% say it has had no effect. Only 11% say that security in the country as a whole has improved in the last six months.
...
95% of Sunnis say that the presence of US troops makes security worse.
...
56% described the "security situation" in the neighborhood in which they live as bad, up slightly from 53% in February, while only 24% say that the security situation in this neighborhood has improved in the past six months. 79% of Sunnis say that security in their neighborhood is bad - despite all those American walking tours of happy, safe markets. Only 7% of Sunnis say that security in their neighborhood has improved in the last 6 months, and only 6% feel safe in their neighborhood.
...
Don't get too excited that 43% say that the neighborhood in which they currently live is relatively safe, because it's probably because this is where they fled to escape from ethnic cleansing: 74% describe their "freedom of movement - the ability to go where you wish safely" as bad, and 77% say that "freedom to live where you wish without persecution" is bad. An astonishing 98% say that the separation of people along sectarian lines is a bad thing.
...
65% say that the current national government is doing a bad job...

The Iraqis don't feel safe in the neighborhoods. The Iraqis haven't answered, in this poll, whether or not they want/need sectarian gangs for security. But, our plan in Anbar is facilitating just that. Meanwhile the Iraqi security forces are rife with Shiite sectarianism. All-in-all, by Bush's "premise" the 'surge' has failed. Furthermore, hope that this will change much in the next 6 to 12 months when the surge is forced to end do to the stress it has put on our military is just hope. And a slim hope at that. By this time next year we'll be back at the troop level we started at, with no end in sight.

Architect of "Anbar Awakening" killed in Ramadi

The big international news this morning was the murder of Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, leader of the Anbar Salvation Council (a.k.a. the Anbar Awakening) and a very shady figure (one I wouldn't have placed as much hope as President Bush did in saving Western Iraq and salvaging his Middle East fiasco). This is a obvious inconvenience for the progress made in al Anbar province by Iraqis but hopefully not a death blow. Sure, some will say that this will unite Sunnis against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) just like the mass killing of hundreds of Yazidi Kurds was to do back in August. It probably wont. Some, led by General Petraeus, will insist that this was AQI. But there is no evidence yet. Similarly, although the culprit of the mass killing of the Yazidis is said to have been killed and was claimed to be a member of AQI, the complexities of Iraq play host to numerous other scenarios. The same goes for todays news. As unpopular as AQI is currently in al Anbar, so is cooperation with the occupation (US) forces. This could very well have been the work of Iraqi nationalists (most likely Sunni).

Writes Marc Lynch:

...there's no reason to assume that al-Qaeda killed him - I'd guess that one of the nationalist insurgency groups, the ones which current American rhetoric pretends don't exist - is a more likely suspect. Other tribes deeply resented him. The major nationalist insurgency groups had recently issued a series of statements denouncing people who would illegitimately seize the fruits of their victorious jihad - of whom he was the prime example. All those photographs which swamped the Arab media showing him shaking hands with President Bush made him even more a marked man than before.

In other news from Iraq, the reconciliation process appears to be on the verge of taking another step backwards as the much anticipated oil law compromise faces more hurdles.

I'm sure the White House spin machine will make this all sound like good news in the Presidents speech to the nation tonight.

[UPDATE 5:02 PM] It didn't take the central Iraqi government long. The attack was al Qaeda and it will solidify the "awakening". Wishful thinking, but as this weeks testimony has made clear: all we really have is hope.

On a side note, Sheik Abu Risha's Anbar Salvation Council is blaming the Iraqi government for the murder... Aside from pointing out how complex the situation is in Iraq and even in the homogeneous al Anbar province as discussed above, it says a lot about the likelihood of the "awakening" becoming friend to the current Baghdad government.

Ignoring bin Laden equals ignoring a "dangerous terrorist threat"

On Sunday President Bush's homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend claimed that Osama bin Laden was "virtually impotent," on the run and in a cave. Similar conclusions have been made by Ann Coulter and president Bush.

Despite these assertions, highly placed government officials reaffirmed Monday that "Osama bin Laden remained the most dangerous terrorist threat to the United States." Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told a Senate committee that eliminating the threat of bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders as well as their sanctuary on the Afghan-Pakistan border the United States "number one priority."

Furthermore, the US focus on Iraq and the inability of Pakistan to confront al Qaeda and its allies has given bin Laden several advantages. According to U.S., Afghan and Pakistani officials and experts, bin Laden has been able "to secure safe harbor in the tribal area of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, rebuild al Qaida's inner circle, train a new generation of jihadis and expand ties to Middle Eastern and North African terrorist groups." This space has allowed the propaganda wing of al Qaeda, the as-Sahab Media Institute, to increase its production output from 16 videos in 2005, to 74 so far in 2007. This rate has doubled from 1 video every 6 days in 2006 to "an average rate of one every three days or so" in 2007.

Baselessly discounting bin Laden's importance to the 'War on Terror' ignores the sober assessments of our top intelligence officials, provides leeway for an "impotent" terrorist leader and his organization to talk to the world and marks down the significance of the man who killed so many 6 years ago today.

Republicans move the goal posts again

We've seen so many goals promoted in regards to the occupation of Iraq. The mission has changed constantly from when it first entered the public conscience to today as we watch the Republicans reset there Iraqi agenda to fit their domestic agenda once again. We know now that president Bush's sole goal is to maneuver into "a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence" so that we "stay longer" in Iraq. He doesn't care about the public will or the soldiers sacrifice. As long as we don't make changes to his failed policies, well that's good enough for him.

In order to do this some reality--just enough really and selected conveniently--must be injected at opportune times. This is a long-standing trend with this administration. It began as the disarmament of Iraq. Then when they accepted the--once stated by the opposition--fact that there was nothing to disarm, it was expanded to regime change and freedom. Sensing that this wasn't enough to move the American populous towards another invasion, they added in the mythical connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Then, of course the mission was accomplished... but that only lasted a few months. The occupation of Iraq, again, became a mission of freedom as "has been our mission all along" claimed the White House disingenuously. Soon after, it became clear that the 'freedom agenda' was 'hard work' and the goal was shifted to training Iraqis (this is where General Petraeus entered the political realm, conveniently right before the 2004 election. Nothing he wrote then bore fruit.). When that didn't go as planned the Administration shifted again towards promoting democracy. Months later they added that we were there to protect the "homeland" from the terrorists that were being created in Iraq. Nearly a year later the mission shifted again towards security for Iraqis. Early this year the Administrations line became the provision of security for