Time For Serious Talk On Iraq

By Mimikatz

In another couple of weeks, Congress comes back from recess.  On or about September 11 the White House will give its "polished" version of the Petraeus Report.  We already have the bleak political outloook in the NIE, and Kevin Drum shows with statistics that as compared to June-July 2006, Bush's escalation is a failure by any significant measure.  So why do we keep hearing that the Democrats are getting squishy?  Can they really be getting ready to coalesce around a strategy of removing Prime Minister Maliki in favor of General Nguyen Cao Ky--I mean Iyad Allawi--and asking the increasingly restive public for another 6-12 months before anything changes in Iraq?  How can this be?

There were two insightful posts this week that may hold a clue.  One is the piece by Jay Ackroyd at TPM Cafe laying out the DC Consensus (short version:  Iraq is going to be more awful if we leave than we can tell you, so we won't be candid about the fact that we really aren't going to be able to leave for years) and the ensuing comment thread.  The other is an op-ed by of all people Jim Hoagland at the WaPo.  He points out that George Bush most especially, but also the Pentagon and politicians of both parties, are so invested in the Iraq mess that they cannot admit their failure.  Rather than seriously trying to find a way out, they are now simply trying to protect their reputations and hang onto power.

Some military commanders, CIA agents in Iraq, Republican members of Congress, State Department diplomats and others now make their highest priority the protection of their own reputations, careers and institutions -- the three blend seamlessly into a single overriding ambition in Washington -- for the post-Bush era, which thus draws closer, in the manner of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The need to protect the White House, the Pentagon and both major political parties from greater Iraq fallout explains much of the blame being dumped on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at this late date -- even though his deficiencies and close links to Iran and Syria were clearly visible when the administration helped install him in the job in 2006. As he has been throughout the Iraq experience, Bush is condemned to play the cards he dealt himself. (snip)

The U.S. military is helping Sunni tribes organize into armed militias that will owe their loyalty beyond the tribe to American commanders rather than to Maliki's government. Similarly, the CIA has molded an Iraq intelligence service that draws no public funds from the Iraqi government and presumably is paid for by Langley. The agency's reluctance to act against Kurdish rebels operating against Iran and Turkey may also be part of a separate vision of the agency's future role in Iraq.

And what would be motivating the Democrats, who seem by and large to be congenitally unable to think their way to and articulate with confidence a clear view of what we must do?  Fear of being blamed, I think, as much as fear of being thought weak.  As the GOP sharpens its stab-in-the-back rhetoric, the Dems become more reluctant to speak honestly to the country, even as their popularity plummets?

If they could be honest, what should they say?  That there is no military solution in Iraq, as the NIE says.  That it is not "supporting the troops" to ask them to do a job that cannot be done.  That nearly half the troops will have to come home next year, as former General Peter Pace now says, because the military cannot sustain Bush's escalation.  That we have so wrecked Iraqi society by our ill-considered and misguided invasion and even more misguided and ideologically driven occupation that no political reconciliation seems on the horizon, especially not if we are there literally as well as figuratively calling the shots.  Yes, there may be more violence if we leave, at least for a time. But why do we think that a smaller "residual" force in Iraq will be able to pacify the country when 160,000 troops have not succeeded, except in limited areas outside Baghdad, and for limited periods?  If some force is needed to deter others from invading Iraq (and repeating our mistakes), why should that force be pinned down in Iraq, rather than positioned more safely nearby? 

Above all, they should say that Iraq is not the only, or even the most serious, threat we face.  America's existence as a nation is not threatened by the insurgents in Iraq, who overwhelmingly are fighting over who will control Iraq, not the US.  Nor is our existence as a democratic nation threatened by Islamic extremism, even if we may suffer an attack or two in the next several years.  Rather, our existence as a democratic nation is threatened by the drift toward centralization, secrecy and fascism by the Bush/Cheney regime.  By the hollowing out of our industrial capacity and the decaying of our infrastruecture.  By the decline in our schools and our public health system, indeed our whole health care system, that leaves us vulnerable to epidemics and natural disasters.  By climate change, which is already bringing more severe storms and extremes of temperature, and changes in ecosystems. 

And most of all it is threatened by politicans who treat the public like children, who won't speak to us honestly, who tell us to shut up and shop, and not raise our voices and act like citizens.

Update:

This just in:  Think Progress reports that the success in Anbar province and other Sunni areas is due to Sunni anticipation of an inevitable US withdrawal.  In other words, realizing that we are probably going to begin leaving soon, the Sunnis are positioning themselves for the post-US period by cooperating against al Qaeda in Iraq and others to reduce their influence.  This supports the idea that if we left, or were seen to be leaving soon, the Iraqis would have more incentive to resolve their differences or work out whatever modus vivendi they could.

Comments

[bmaz]

The Democratic Congresscritters have more than ganglia for brains. At least a little more. I think. At what point do the realization set in that the Bush Administration does not tell the truth, is incapable of making a good decision and is to incompetent to execute any plan for Iraq? It just defies all logic. Did Cheney put all the Dems in a skinner box and desensitize them or something? They are mindless rats pressing the joy bar of war and fear at this point. Nothing more.

[Jodi]

I can not tell you what my brother tells me from Iraq. And tells no others in the family. They don't know I dabble here.

But he would not disagree much with what you say above Mimikatz.

In my own words it is CYA time for the so called leaders of this country in every party, with the most important thing being the greed for and the acquisition of power.

Being a Geek, I must refer to the Time Honored Code of The Ferengi.

The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
Rule 10. Greed is eternal!

[semiot]

A very cogent analysis, and perfectly reasonable recommendations for a Democratic approach to Iraq right now. Why won't the Dems listen to you, Mimi?

The dolchstoss, that's why. They are willing to remain essentially quiessent on the key issues of our time - because they are afraid of being blamed for the shit that's about to hit the fan.

We have a Congress now that resembles nothing so much as the "Provisional Government" of Russia under Kerenski or the Reichstag under von Papen. Weak Micawber politicians concerned only with personal reputation and the maintenance of a tenuous status quo until "something will turn up."

[Flamethrower]

Iraq is going to explode into violence the day after we leave - be that tomorrow or 10 years from tomorrow. One day in between Iraqis will get sick of it and maybe come together. Or not.

Our side is as cowardly as the other side is mendacious.

[Kathleen]

Has the Bush administration provided Osama Bin Laden with his wish to witness "the U.S. become a shadow of its former self"

The faith in our congress can not go any lower or can it?

Great article at Information Clearing House by Scott Ritter on Cheney. Also great article about the right (wrong) wing radicals pushing us closer to a confrontation with Iran.

[Mimikatz]

If there were a politician who took the risk to speak honestly, the GOP spin machine would gang up on him/her for awhile. But did Harry Reid lose his job for saying the Iraq War was lost? No, and now he's vindicated by the NIE and several generals.

It was probably a poor choice of words, since we are in an occupation not a war, in which we fight this faction or that in this place or that, but have no real country-wide coherent strategy.

I think most recently Obama comes the closest, because he isn't bogged down by having supported the war early on. But he's nowhere near where I would like to see a candidate get. But fer gods' sakes--in Iowa a majority (51%) of Republicans want us out in 6 mos.

As I said, the Dems fear being blamed, but they are much more apt to survive the inevitable blaming if they stand up forthrightly and take a position, rather than weakly acquiesce in what Bush wants, thereby alienating everyone.

[Coral]

Rather, our existence as a democratic nation is threatened by the drift toward centralization, secrecy and fascism by the Bush/Cheney regime. By the hollowing out of our industrial capacity and the decaying of our infrastruecture. By the decline in our schools and our public health system, indeed our whole health care system, that leaves us vulnerable to epidemics and natural disasters. By climate change, which is already bringing more severe storms and extremes of temperature, and changes in ecosystems.

Great post, MimiKatz.

You left out the media in your list of threats to the nation, which have suppressed facts and opinions not to their liking, and ridiculed the few brave politicians who have been willing to be honest.

For me, the great question for the upcoming primaries and general election is: Can this situation be reversed?

Even with a Democratic victory of massive proportions, I'm not sure that it can. Still, I see that as the only thing that could possibly begin to turn the tide, slow down the train wreck...pick your metaphor.

[bmaz]

Um, Rule 10 of the Freenghi Rules of Acquisition is "A dead customer cannot buy as much as a live customer".

[oldtree]

We find an issue where the people of this country find out leaders out of touch and of questionable abilities.
I think for this reason we will never know why they are building permanent bases, talking about staying and continuing a war to provide that one thing that will keep them in power. that which provides power.
if this third world country we live in, lost it's oil as well as it's collective mind, there would be no need for this conversation. I suggest that this is a known fact, and makes all the posturing moot. we, the people, will not give up the almighty oil. our government has stifled new sources of energy on orders of those that make money on energy (re; the people running government)
so we can continue to guess at why a majority of the people are ignored about this matter. our representatives no longer have the fortitude to tell us what is going on. is this because they have been blackmailed with the warrantless wiretapping? perhaps. is it because they are corrupt to the core, perhaps. is it because there is no more oil left greater than what we are negotiating to steal now, perhaps. you don't explain martial law to your constituents.
so, enjoy the show. that dog on pony action continues to amuse and placate the sheep that lives within us. the trusting community member that wonders at how anyone could think our government would so disenfranchise us need look no further than new orleans to realize what you can expect from your country. bridges fall, roads fall into disrepair, the treasury is drained. at any time, any one senator could have stopped the poisoned bills from ever reaching a vote. none did. the only people that stopped a senate vote were republicans that wanted to hide crimes. no democrat has the will to end one of these by putting a hold on it that could not be removed by any other power. that should be enough to explain even to one's children's children that the government of the US was utterly corrupt just before the fall. not one came to our aid folks. not one.

please, look at the real world and realize how many important things we are taking for granted based on words from known serial liars. enjoy the future, it could be a bumpy ride if we remain in denial.

[Sojourner]

bmaz, she is putting the neocon troll spin on it...

[Mimikatz]

Speaking of the ferengi, there is a lovely beach on the island of Penang in Malaysia called Batu Ferengi. Batu means beach in Malay, and ferengi means foreigner. That has to be where the name came from.

[Ace Armstrong]

Both major political parties are deeply invested in the national security state which is animated by the military industrial complex. We are the largest supplier of arms in the world. Why wouldn't it behoove us to promote conflict? Take the recent reporting of the unaccountability for a large number of small arms in Iraq provided by the U.S. They might be unaccounted for, but you can bet they were paid for. Before the war oil was $22/bbl and Haliburton was $22/share. Both now hover around $70, although Haliburton was clever enough to split two for one and obfuscate things a bit.

[freepatriot]

Uhm, bmaz, I think you mean the "Monroe" box

named after it's inventor, Dr Marvin Monroe

High Everybody, (waves hands) I can't resist a "Simpson's" reference

no changes in my situation, but I'm still "out there" somewhere

[bmaz]

Misquoting Ferenghi is the most useful thing Troll has supplied in quite a while. Troll control is hard work, Hard work I'm telling you. (Insert Bush smirk/braindead chuckle here).

[Jodi]

Dear tiny man (excuse me) tiny gentleman, there are lists of rules and lists of rules. I don't know where you got yours, but here are a few of mine.

dmwright

"Rule 010 » Greed is eternal"

startrekfans

"Rule 010 È Greed is eternal."

Googling on [+"Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" +"greed is eternal"]
I got 537 hits.

Googling on [+"Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" +"greed is"]
I got 578 hits.

I rest my case.

[Sara]

I see the current state of play between Democrats and Republicans vis a vis Iraq a little differently.

I don't think the Democrats are as fearful of the stab-in-the-back argument as they are of being seen to take too much "leadership" and suffering loss of the argument come election time, that this is Bush's war, and that the Republicans in Congress, sticking together like crazy on the Premptive Doctrine and all the rest, are the Authors and Architects of it along with Bush.

Democrats know that many Senate and House Republicans want to run away from that position, tails between legs, but since they were unwilling to vote for any of the timeline limits in the Supplemental, why should the Democrats make it easy for them? My guess is that the Republicans who have indicated some distance from Bush -- Lugar and Warner, have probably been told by Reid precisely how many votes they have to bring to the table for a resolution of limits on troop numbers and a clear plan for departure in the not too distant future, for Reid to recommend any sort of Democratic support for such a Republican back-out strategy. Democrats want the election environment to be about Bush, Cheney and many R Senators and Congresspersons doing a very slow roll down a very long staircase. It is pure legislative politics. You do this when actual leadership (Reid) simply can't get votes for a straight up resolution -- but knowing the other side wants a resolution that gives them cover, you extract the largest price possible.

For comparative purposes, this is exactly the move LBJ put on the Republican Senate Leadership over the matter of the censure of old Joe McCarthy. The Eisenhower WH wanted the censure resolution, the Republicans in the Senate wanted the censure, led by Ralph Flanders and Margret Chase Smith -- but LBJ kept all the Democratic votes he had under his hat until Leadership produced a list of commitments to vote against ole Joe. Only then did he deliver all the Democrats in the chamber. In some circles it is called making the dog clean up its own shit. It was making the Republicans take a major share of responsibility for their own renegade. In this case it is telling Warner and Lugar they can have the pleasure of rounding up enough votes for a veto-proof resolution. If they get enough votes for a reasonable resolution, then Reid will allow it to come to the floor, and furnish the necessary Democratic Votes.

Such protects Democrats from Stab in the Back talk, and it, more or less, keeps Bush and Cheney rolling down that long staircase well into next year, which will suit Democrats just fine.

[what a moron]

is there any commentator more gd stupid that this 'jodi' bot ??

as charles pierce would say, 'jeebuschristmas'.

[AJ]

I know you will all be shocked to open the Washington Post this am and see another self-justifying and intellectually dishonest piece of crap from Michael O'Hanlon...or you could just wait for the Glenn Greenwald eviserceration that is sure to follow.

[bmaz]

wam - NO. However, in the one semi-annual act of kindness I have for the Shit Stain, there does seem to be some variation in the order of rules in different lists of Ferenghi Rules of Acquisition. Who knew?

[Jodi]

: )

bmaz,

the technologically advantaged (sometimes called Geeks) know.

But in the vein of the ordinary everyday kindness I exhibit by not calling people names, I hereby remove you from my category of tiny people.

[Mimikatz]

Thanks, Sara, for the analysis. That gives me some hope. And let's be civil, folks, not knee-jerk. Jodi actually pretty much agreed with my original post, if you look at her comment.

[dougR]

Maybe it's me, or maybe it's the August doldrums, but I'm afraid I can't see anything ahead that represents a "win" for our side--progressive, Democratic, whatever-you-call-us. The Bushies are stalling, with the able assistance of the media and the DC-based "policy" establishment and the charm offensive on how the surge is "working"--until a Democratic president will be forced finally to pull the plug in Iraq. With the resulting post-withdrawal cataclysm in Iraq will come a continual, relentless, shit-storm-tsunami of neocon/crackpot/Republican propaganda about "DEFEAT!!!", and it'll be the Democratic president, rather than George Bush, who will will wear that "defeat" in Iraq around his/her neck like one of those African burning-tire necklaces. We all know the people who have pushed this war will fight one last campaign, once we've withdrawn: to paint their war as headed for victory, but for the dastardly defeatocrats.

All of which is perhaps to be expected, but I see nothing on our side--no recognition of the propaganda shitstorm to come, no preparation to address the impending Iraqi bloodbath on an effective basis--and certainly no unified position for withdrawal now, that gives me any hope here. The malleability of people who ought to know better, to the siren song "the surge is working", proves to me that truth is a dead issue, and the lukewarm spit that passes for Democratic "leadership" will matter not one bit.

Anybody see it differently? Anybody...?

[bmaz]

You are still a troll, but you are our troll I suppose...
Shit Stain may even be a term of endearment by now
Depends on the day.
FYI Here is site I referenced. It is huge list of RofA; like 230 of them
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wakefield/ferenghi.html

[bmaz]

Sara and Mimi - I agree with everything Sara wrote; it is intellectually both correct and consistent. However, it is a view premised on the natural state of politics, and I often wonder if that is still the correct frame of thought. Due to the egregious and malicious policies and actions of this Administration, it is impossible to separate the issue of the war in Iraq from the other front line issues of torture, habeas corpus, 4th Amendment, domestic spying, corruption and was profiteering, theocratic politicizing of civil service government etc. My fear is that by continuing to treat these issues within the standard political framework of posture for the next election plays into the hands of those that brought us those ills, and put us in this situation, to begin with. This has happened time and time again. Every time the radical right wing of the Republican party grabs substantial power, they impose maximum dogmatic policy and standards. If they maintain power, they have accomplished what they intended and keep plowing further and further into their corporate/theological ideology; if they lose power, they have substantially shifted the baseline and acceptable norms in their direction. The Democrats, upon reclaiming power, are never able to fully reset things to where they should be; they always are forced to bring the country back to stability and start governance from the new baseline and ingrained norms.

If we keep giving up ground in this tug of war, we will soon be off the right (i.e. wrong) side of the field altogether. Our Constitutionally proscribed form of contemplated government, with it's inherent checks, balances and wisdom, is in serious danger of being irretrievably broken. It is for this reason that, while I fully accept the logic of what Sara has set forth; I am not sure about the implied conclusion that this is a smart and acceptable way for the Democrats to be framing things at this point. I am not sure it is wrong either. I don't know; but I think it deserves serious discussion and thought. I am concerned that when you keep framing things in terms of "It is ok, it is a smart plan for electing more Democrats in 2008", that you perpetuate what I have described here. Politicians, Democrats quite included, are, by nature, malleable shills; they will shift and do what they perceive as being the path of least resistance to election and reelection. This may grow our Democratic majority and even put us in the White House, but will it put us back on the track that the country should be on? The track that the country was founded and designed to be on? I have my own ideas on the answers to these questions and issues; but I am conflicted and not sure. I am truly interested in hearing what all of you think; please tell me and explain why. Thanks.

[Boo Radley]

Jodi,

Per MimiKatz, I appreciate your comment about your brother.

For the good of the nation, however, I would urge you to tell your brother to get the word out in a way that does not jeapordize him. The Bushies continue to use the military, especially the Generals, to make public statements that we all know are bogus.

"the technologically advantaged (sometimes called Geeks) know."

I have never seen any evidence that you are "technologically advantaged." The few times you ever reference a document to bolster one of your opinions, you don't even know the HTML to make a link. Leaving a URL, (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL) is fine as long as you don't try to pawn yourself off as "technologically advanced."

Please communicate to your brother that we all pray/hope for his continued safety and are doing our best to get him the hell out of there. Despite the fact that I vehemently disagree with the operation, it's not his fault and I am deeply grateful for his service to our country.

[Boo Radley]

bmaz, FWIW, Ambassador Joe Wilson left a roughly similar comment on the Congressman Jerry McNerney thread last night at FDL:

"I have to leave and it is clear that there are many more questions than you have time to answer, so let me just offer a thought or two.
It is the nature of democracy to seek the compromises that benefit the many without disadvantaging the minority’s essential, constitutionally protected rights. And in normal times your ideas of persuading republicans of the value of your positions would be laudable.
These are not normal times and your political adversaries have a very different agenda as we have seen since the arrival of Newt, and then W to positions of power. It is clear that they are committed shredding of the constititution and the imposition of undemocratic and unAmerican practices including the politicization of those very institutions that have grown up over 230 years to protect our contract with those who govern us. It is an unprecedented power grab and simultaneous looting of the American treasury for the benefit of a few who they hope will keep them in power. You don’t negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy.

As an afterthought, the military takes orders from civilian authority. We don’t “negotiate” with generals."

[jurassicpork]

"Just a little patience" with your civil war? Gee, where have we heard that before? Well, let ole JP count the ways...

[Sara]

Bmaz -- I am not making an argument for the morality of it all -- I am just seeing a good ole legislative tactic in play, and I think it is very smart for Reid to play it this way.

It may well be that the political paradigm is otherwise, but sometimes good legislative practice is to stick with normal politics. Essentially, Reid is saying to Lugar and Warner and others -- look, you bring me 25 votes for a cap on troops in Iraq, (he may want it in writing), and I'll let your minimalist resolution get a vote. But without putting half of the Republican Senators on the table, I give you no cover. And oh yea -- we want the ones running for election in 2008. We want to make you in to flip floppers, and we want insurance against the stab in the back revision of history.

I agree that all the civil liberties matters must also be addressed. Remember they only passed that FISA revision for 6 months, meaning there will be hearings, probably lots more leakage around the edges, but it will be up to the vox populi to make this an issue they have to address. Thus far, not much has been asked in the debates about wiretapping and the FBI letters and all -- and I doubt if elected officials or party operatives will open it up on their own. But in the right measure this is something people care about. They want to be "secure" but they also value privacy. But making it an issue in the election will need to come from the outside. We ought to be thinking about how to frame it as a proper election issue. Of course it relates to Bush's use of fear of Terrorism, constant references to Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence without actually making clear what causation notions he is flogging. Democrats need to accuse Bush of befuddlement, of pulling a con game on the American People -- and then lay out a more effective and much less intrusive set of ideas about "real security." Even if all they do is cry foul about all the waste fraud and abuse in all those no-bid contracts for various outsourced "security" services, there is plenty there to cast the current administration as con artists taking the American People for a ride based on fear.

Done right, I think there are millions of votes here. Let me tell you about one. Couple of weeks ago when I wanted to take delivery on my new wheels, I thought I could just go to the bank and take money out of a savings account (known as the new car fund) and some from checking and get a cashiers check to pay for the car. Well you can't do that any more given Homeland Security regulations. I had to go to the main bank down town, and get the Banker who has known me for over 25 years (he moved up, is now a VP) to authorize my little withdrawal on his authority. Well, he WAS a rock ribbed conservative Republican who a few years ago was just loving Bush, but boy has he changed his tune. I got an earfull on all the crazy regulations and indeed threats they have encountered. Red-Tape and Bureaucracy are the name of the game, and the target is the little ole lady who wants to buy a new car. Now that is really suspicious, wants to pay for a new car!!! Has bill in hand for car, wants cashiers check to the penny. Dealer is one of the largest in the area. Oh, something really suspicious is going on here. Anyhow, assuming Dem's say something about unreasonable security measures that don't actually seem addressed to terrorism, I see a whole class of former Republicans up for grabs.

And by the way, he also wants the Dem's to do something about TV News. It was two days after the bridge collapse, and he was really pissed that the Cable News Folk started speculating about terrorism being behind the bridge collapse within an hour or so of the event, and with absolutely no evidence. Even I wasn't that mad -- I actually thought the effort at hype was funny in an ironic sort of way in the midst of a tragic scene. He was so mad he was willing to totally reverse all the media mergers of recent years. I suspect there are millions of business/finance republicans thinking similar thoughts.

[bmaz]

Sara - As I said above, I don't disagree, and find your logic and thoughts intellectually consistent and compelling. And politics is a game of the continuum; it plows on relentlessly no matter what, so you must pay attention to it. The problem I feel is that is the only real strategy I see being implemented by the Democratic leadership. And, despite the occasional sturm and drang, there is no attempt to really cry out about the fundamental problems we face, educate the public on them, and lead the movement for real change; they just plow along timidly toward the next election. I think the people are there already and dying to be lead; just like your conservative friend exhibited. I think this is exactly why the polls are so abysmal for Congress. There has to be a happy medium where we can do both doesn't there?

[Boo Radley]

Thanks very much Sara.

[Sara]

Oh dear, not being sufficently clear. Let's try it another way.

Campaign strategy is such that you want your audience at a boil during the first week in November of Election Year. We are more than 14 months ahead of that point. Red Meat is best served up freshly grilled during the weeks between Labor Day and Election Day during an election year. Otherwise you, as they say in the trade, Peak too soon.

This cycle is especially hard because everyone wants to see the back end of Bush, and vast numbers are ready to vote NOW. But you can't vote till next year. So with the campaigns for both Congress and the Presidency already off and running and topping the news every night, good Democratic Strategists want to slow things down. They certainly are not going to haul out the barbie and start grilling for at least a year.

This doesn't at all mean the big issues, Iraq, Civil Libertie matters, Afghanistan, posture toward Pakistan, and all the domestic issues such as health care, education, environmental matters, falling down bridges and the like cannot and should not be debated. But the time now is for the outside groups to take the lead, to raise awareness of issue details, and perhaps confront candidates with these on the stump. The Elected Pol's want to stay in legislating mode at least till next winter, the longer the better. For instance, there is a huge cohort of voters who want to see revisions in "No Child Left Behind" this fall. The analysis of problems with this program are shared by Democrats and Republicans -- They just might pass revisions over Bush's Veto. Democrats see it as a demonstration they can "get something done" -- Republicans see it as a signal that they are not welded firmly to Bush. There is a Farm Bill coming up, and the Dem's have chucked it full of alternative energy measures, which find great favor with farm states who see an interesting new revenue stream, but it puts Big Oil dependent Republicans in a corner. The Dem leadership wants to bring this to a vote this year, the assumption is that Bush will veto, and this offers a very attractive issue in the right place next year. It puts someone like Pat Roberts of Kansas in a corner -- on one hand he gets much support from Koch Brothers of Oil and Gas fame, on the other hand the farmers and small towns in his state want to get into bio-fuels. You see not everyone is going to vote on Iraq -- many will, but not all. These other matters may mean the difference between a full winning hand next fall, or one that doesn't catch fire. So what about a competitive Senate Race in Kansas? Could be interesting. Might mean 60 Democratic Senators with a Dem in the White House you know. It really is during this fall and winter that the measure of what can be done in 08 is set. And yes, it is pure legislative and electorial politics, with little real pretense to addressing Iraq and all that goes along with it. Outside groups can keep it stirred up, and should, people will be paying attention to what happens there, but in the meantime it is Bush's problem, Bush's war, and till next fall he should be held accountable. Remember how they all jumped on the idea that Kosovo was "Madeline's War" (that is till Wes Clark won it with no US casualities), well this is just the same medicine backwards. It sounds simple, but the point of a political party is to get its candidates elected -- and the modifier for any political party is the social and political movements outside the party, but with many voters and candidates who identify with a party. So for the time being the Democrats have to be seen as both listening to the "out of Iraq" movement people, but also carefully listening to military types, (such as Wes Clark) urging careful planning and realistic objectives. (my guess is that Hillary will pick Wes Clark for VP. First woman President will have a 4 Star sitting by her side.).

BOOK RECOMMENDATION: As everyone knows I have taken considerable interest over the years in George C. Marshall. Well, there is a new double biography out on him, "George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace: Partners in Command," by Mark Perry, Penguin Press, 2007. Just finished it earlier this week, and it is fascinating. The Author actually created the bio in highly contemporary terms -- Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army of then, and the Army of today. The Command structure of then, versus now, FDR versus Bush. Henry Stimson versus Donald Rumsfeld, Doctrine then versus now -- and on and on. Marshall had a profound belief that a Democracy could not really keep support for a long war and he thought that a good thing, because if understood, it kept Presidents from becoming warriors. FDR's primary role was to do the politics -- both with congress and with Churchill and Stalin, and to select the supreme commander, and Marshall was disappointed when FDR selected Ike and not Marshall. But then he crafts precisely what their relationship really was -- Marshall was the Upperclassman (as understood at VMI or any Military College, and Ike was the Pleb -- the forever underclassman. They were not really friends, they didn't share many interests other than the job at hand, but it worked. Ike, forever the underclassman wanted little more than to prove Marshall's trust had merit -- and as Perry well demonstrates virtually all the rough spots got ironed out with these dynamics. Not all that much about Marshall's theories as to how to conclude a war or his planning for the Occupation of Germany, (things that interest me), but perhaps someone else will do the kind of job Perry did on that sub-topic.

[Jodi]

Boo Radley,

thanks for the comments about my brother.

I don't usually spout off about science/engineering/technology, but it is my life, though not computers specifically, but I do have an advantage of having ready access and contact with some of the greatest computer jocks and Geeks in the world, and it rubs off. (Plus who wants to be embarassed all the time by being seen as a dummy. So you work a little harder!)

As for your comment on URLs, please observe, you won't perturb, my post on
Aug 25, 2007 at 01:41.

Usually I post on Forums where you just drop the URL in the text entry box, and either it converts automatically, or you just select the URL text, and then the convert button.

Blogs are a bit clumsy that way, and I am usually in a hurry.

[bmaz]

Sara - Oh, pay no attention to me. I never particularly thought that you and I were not on the same page; I just don't want anyone else running off thinking we should only worry about electing majorities etc. to the detriment of the reclamation issues I described and focus on. I am determined to keep that tattooed on the foreheads of the citizenry and politicians alike. And after the "Protecting America Act" bunk; I am downright militaristic about it. It isn't you I'm after here....

[bmaz]

Jodi - I am chagrined that my Ferenghi RofA list I found a couple of weeks ago during a discussion with my wife is apparently an outlier as to the sequencing of the rules. I usually do better....

[hauksdottir]

The only way we'll get serious talk on Iraq is if one of the Democratic "front-runners" was to be Kucinich or somebody else who has always spoken against illegal wars of occupation.

As long as the front-runner is a war-profiteer* or has friends who profit by continuous warfare, the Democrats won't offer a break between the status quo of business as usual and real change in how America acts against the interests of the world and against the interests of the majority of her own citizens.

*Please note that profiteering doesn't have to be through fund holdings or bribes or contracts (actual cash money). Clinton desperately wants those "war powers" currently abrogated by Bush, and what President has ever given back war powers once the war is over? We were paying that excise tax on our phone bills almost 2 centuries after the war against the Spanish. What governmental treasury has ever said "enough money!"? If America isn't at war, those spying on us won't have reason to do so, but what spy agency has ever relinquished control over the collection and flow of information? If fear wasn't a selling point, the bullies would have to stop controlling the message and the populace, and what bully has ever retired gracefully?

The front-runners are all bought and paid for by the big money interests, including the media who have anointed them and promote them because of their big corporate backers and advertisers. War benefits the media (something to sell newspapers). War benefits health providers and drug makers (wounded-for-life veterans need expensive care). War benefits trucking companies, construction companies, makers of steel, concrete, glass. War benefits prison companies and mercenary companies and service providers such as Halliburton. Eternal war benefits those who provide the expendables: bullets and bombs, high octane fuel, machines that break down, chemicals that require replacing whether they are used or not. War benefits the diplomats who'd be toothless if they didn't have big sticks to wave around. War benefits lawyers, whether by writing legislation or arguing court cases.

This is a capitalistic country, where money and power and profit are worshiped. If peace was made into a profitable enterprise, and carrots were more valuable than sticks, our leadership might promote the interests of peace.

[Alyx]

Technically advantaged means what? Inquiring minds want to know?

[Jodi]

Ahh, don't fret bmaz. I know a guy who can quote most of them number and all, as well as other sci-fi sayings. He works off by himself mostly.

Another guy (notice it isn't the girls) who can talk exactly like Yoda.

"Understand, do you?"

And quite a few that have costumes for "events."

Alyx {defender of mankind- what a beautiful name)
"technologically advantaged" doesn't mean implants, at least in my case!

: )