The Next Hurrah

Is War With Iran Imminent?

By Mimikatz

Being more or less an optimist by nature, I am generally skeptical of the stories that periodically surface claiming that we are months, weeks or even days away from war with Iran, given how insane it would be on so many levels.  But the new spate of stories has me worried.

Evidently they began with a directive sent by Vice President Cheney to various neocon think tanks to begin drumming up support for the war.  Via George Packer,

They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained.

Evidently 35-40% support is deemed to be enough--that would be the 25% of the population who are Bushbots (including the neocons) and  5-10% who either profit from war or who just think things going boom is cool.

Spencer Ackerman finds a connection between our embrace of new BFFs the Sunni tribal leaders and former insurgents and the talk of war with Iran.  These same Sunnis warned the US in 2005 that elections would deliver the country to Iran.  Is the increased support for the Sunnis and the undermining of Prime Minister Maliki a harbinger of a switch in who we are really backing?  Was that part of the subtext of Bush's surprise visit to Anbar?  After all, in the view of Reuel Marc Gerecht, it is the Shi'a militias, particularly the Mahdi Army, and their Iranian suppliers, who are now responsible for most American deaths.  Best we teach those pesky Iranians a lesson now.

Ackerman sees the Cheney-led campaign as directed as much at the Pentagon as the American public.

Cheney's likely motivation for issuing such instructions to his think-tank allies would be to win an inter-administration battle over the future of Iran policy. Cheney, an advocate of confronting the Iranians militarily, faces opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where the primary concern is preventing an open-ended Iraq commitment from decimating military preparedness for additional crises. A new war is the last thing the chiefs want, and on this, they're backed by Defense Secretary Bob Gates.

This theory makes war with Iran much less likely, except for one thing--The Decider.  Of all the people who seem to really get off on war, Bush has to be the head cheerleader.  And he does have a record of not listening to his generals, like Eric Shinseki.  And we know he really likes kicking (Muslim) ass.  In fact, showing them just how tough we really are is, to me, the most plausible reason for the misbegotten and mismanaged war we are still mired in.

The shakiness of the financial markets had seemed to me to argue against war with Iran, since the economic implications of war (increase in oil prices, possible damage to oil fields leading to even higher prices, China gets involved on some economic front,  stock market goes down, debt goes up, etc)  would seem to exacerbate most if not all of the problems we have now.  But The Cunning Realist thinks that events in the global finacial markets related to the packaging and selling of subprime mortgages make war with Iran more, not less, likely.  I'd like to see this theory elaborated.

In any event, if it comes to that we know that Bush doesn't think he has to ask permission to start a war.  He's the Commander-in-Chief!  And there's always the Authorization for Unlimited Military Force (that was the name, wasn't it?)  passed after 9/11 that gives him Congress' blessing.  Declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be terrorists and blaming all the weapons in Iraq (that aren't ones we gave the Iraqi Army) on them provides the provocation.  If more is needed, it can be manufactured.

So now I'm worried again.  What do you folks think?

Gonzales has Resigned

By Mimikatz

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned effective September 17.  Nothing definite on a successor, but Think Progress says it will be Dept of Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff, and that an untested young Bush loyalist named Clay Johnson will be named as Chertoff's successor.  No details yet on any deals with the Dems, although Senator Dianne Feinstein claims to have made suggestions for a successor.  As for DHS, certainly the Dems must not allow another incompetent to be installed in the agency that is supposed to protect us and coordinate the resonse to any disasters--we all saw that movie two years ago to the day. 

Consider this an open thread.  I'll post details as they become available.

First Update:

TPM reports that Solicitor Paul Clement is also under consideration, at least for Acting Attorney General,  that Chertoff is likely, and that Bush does not seem to be thinking in terms of a recess appointment.  As I said Saturday, I don't think that is likely and the fact that they are floating people who have already been confirmed once suggests they are looking to submit the name to the Senate.  That Gonzales' resignation is effective September 17 also suggests they are looking at a confirmation process.  Here's hoping the Dems really get serious and extract some promises in writing, in addition to sunjecting any nominees to very serious scrutiny.  This is one of those times of maximum leverage for the Congress, and they really should take their duty to the American people seriously.

Update No. 2

Bush is not naming a replacement today and, according to MSNBC one has not been chosen.  Per Americablog Bush was very angry at his press conference, so it is probably best that he's going to raise money for Pajamas Pete Domenici and Dave Reichert,  WA-08.  TPM Muckraker reports (and CNN confirms) that Chertoff may not be it.  So who floated his name to US News?  They are saying Bush may appoint a successor before he leaves for Australia on Monday, but it ain't going to be before Emptywheel comes back to give us her trenchant take on all this.  And plenty of time to get those calls to the Senators going to urge them to take this very seriously.

Update No. 3

Our colleague Trapper John has a simple criterion for anyone nominated to replace AGAG:  S/he cannotr have served in the Bush Administration.  Since the one and only qualification for serivce in the SBush/Cheney regime is loyalty to Bush/Cheney, and what we need most is someone who is not a crony, making that (along with basic competence) the determinant will eliminate any more Brownies and Gonzos and Bozos and, yes, Chertoffs without getting personal about it.  Hello Senator Leahy?

Listening to the Generals

By Mimikatz

One of Bush's standard lines is that Iraq policy shouldn't be made by politicians in Washington (other than him) and that he will "listen to the Generals."  Of course this isn't true, as a long list of generals starting with Eric Shinseki, who tried to get Bush/Cheney and Congress to understand they didn't have the forces to do what they wanted in Iraq, and ending with former Iraq Commander General George Casey who was replaced by General Petraeus, and Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who were essentially demoted recently, could testify.  But what are the generals saying now?

General Casey, now the Army Chief of Staff, was the architect of the Iraq conflict from mid 2004 until the end of 2006.  His prescription was to try to reduce the US combat role and concentrate on training Iraqis to provide their own security.  This was the plan Bush rejected in late 2006 when he decided to escalate and replaced Casey with counter-insurgency expert General David Petraeus.  But according to the Thursday Wall Street Journal, the once vilified Casey has now seen his influence return under Defense Secretary Robert Gates, as it is clear within the Pentagon that the "surge" has not accomplished much and cannot long be continued.  Casey opposes extending tours of duty beyond the current 15 months and would like them scaled back, if possible.  Casey's views are evidently shared by much of the Washington brass.  Not only are the services losing many talented young officers, according to the Journal, because of the strain of multiple deployments, but recruitment levels, especially among black youth are down.  If the armed services are to remain flexible and effective, the brass feel, the Iraq commitment must be scaled back.  Marine General Pace,  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs until his term ends on September 30, an original opponent of the surge before publicly backing it, has also called for steep troop reductions next year. 

General Petraeus is known to favor keeping the surge going for as long as possible and reducing troops only to the extent necessary to avoid overtaxing them. 

So what we have here is the generals at home, who are responsible for the overall health of the American military, now willing to speak out and urging that the number of troops in Iraq be scaled back, to as few as half what we have now.  The Defense Secretary, who was a member of the Baker-Hamilton Commission before his appointment, was also no great fan of the surge.  Meanwhile Petraeus, installed by Bush as his savior, is pleading not to have the troops withdrawn when we are on the brink of success, although he acknowledges that insurgencies can take 10 years to defeat.

Obviously there is a good deal of positioning going on here, as there is among the politicians, to avoid taking blame for Iraq and for the poor state of readiness in the event of some near-term challenge. But it is ironic that Casey's pullback to bases and concentrate on training seems to be reemerging as the leading alternative to continuing the surge. 

So what should we do?  We should remember Georges Clemenceau's WWI dictum that "War is too serious to be left to the generals."  We have a system of civilian control, not a military junta.  While input from the generals is important, it is politicians who must make the call.  In addition to their constituents, who oppose the war by large margins, they should also listen to those concerned with the long-term health of the military, not those trying to validate their chosen strategy by continuing warfare that is not facilitating reconciliation.   Certainly the troops themselves, the ones risking their lives every day, seem to be less than enthusiastic about the current policy. 

If the Dems can just bring themselves to continue calling for a scaling back of the war and rotations out (but not in) to Iraq next year, it would seem that there might soon be a majority for just such a position. 

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.

Priorities in Congress

by Kagro X

Separation of powers. Heard of it? Congress has.

And here you thought they hadn't!

Why not?

Was it because they haven't yet been willing to enforce their own subpoenas?

Was it because they haven't yet been willing to exercise their "power of the purse" to remove our troops safely from Iraq?

Was it because they acceded to the president's demands that they pass exactly the FISA language they wanted, or he wouldn't let them recess?

Was it because the president is setting them up for more of the same by threatening to veto every single appropriations bill that doesn't match his budget numbers, thereby threatening a government shutdown?

Well, you can lay your fears to rest. Congress has rediscovered its willingness to defend its prerogatives:

Reversing Watergate

by Kagro X

Over at Daily Kos, diarists gbchaucer2 and R o o k both put us on notice of the "administration's" latest outrage: their declaration that the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

You can see either of their excellent diaries for expositions on that particular subject.

But I'll tell you why it caught my eye, and it's something I've been thinking about for a long time.

The deadline that wasn't a deadline

by Kagro X

I'm sorry to have to say it, but it's true.

Milbank nails Leahy.

[The White House has] stalled or ignored Leahy's requests as his committee looks into the wiretapping program and the travails of Gonzales. They have calculated -- accurately so far -- that the Dynamic Duo of Leahy and Schumer would deliver harsh words but no punishment of consequence.

"The time is up. The time is up," Leahy announced yesterday. "We've waited long enough."

But what would Leahy do about it? The first questioner riddled Batman with this.

"The full Judiciary Committee will have to sit down and determine whether to seek contempt from the full Senate," said the noncommittal action hero.

Does that mean he would seek a contempt-of-Congress citation? "What I want to do is get the response to these things," Leahy demurred.

Rebecca Carr of Cox News tried again to pin him down, but Leahy continued to escape. "What we have to find out is what happened here," he answered.

How about withholding money from the administration? "Let's take it step by step," he proposed.

Holy incrementalism, Batman!

Just sayin'.

by Kagro X

We find ourselves involved in a war solely because of Presidential action. The Supreme Court has effectively destroyed the War Powers Act as a Congressional check on illegal Presidential wars. Pundits are saying that Congress must find a new way to play a part in war-making decisions - must strengthen its oversight and rely more heavily on the power of the purse. I agree with these cream-puff remedies but suggest emphatically that what is more important is that Congress comply with the provisions of the safeguarding package that our Founders provided in the Constitution for keeping a bridle on the chief executive, of which the provision for impeachment is an essential part. Is it responsible for Congress to use all of the safeguards except the one the Founders considered most important? The truth is that when the decision is whether to wage an undeclared war, Presidents can do as they please. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees and the Congressional military committees will be told something about it, usually after the fact and only when public hysteria has reached a level where criticism will be stigmatized as un-American. A few members of Congress will complain in unnoticed speeches. The big newspapers will mention the actions "with some concern." A majority of the public will support the President, cheifly because the war has already begun and the "enemy" has been identified by the President as a serious threat to our nation. So, what are we to do? I suggest a conservative return to the remedy suggested in the Constitution.... If we do not, all future Presidents will be able to claim immunity for unlawful conduct of foreign affairs. We have a responsibility to draw this line in the nuclear age.

Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA)
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Constitutional and Civil Rights
August 9, 1983

McConnell and Dick

by emptywheel

There are two stories out today claiming Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, is really wearing the pants in the Executive Branch's dealings with intelligence. The NYT has McConnell describing tremendous pressure from Congress, yet insisting he got no pressure from the White House.

In an interview in his office, Mr. McConnell insisted on Tuesday that he never felt direct pressure from the White House to reject the Democratic proposal, and that contrary to statements from senior Democrats he had never given a verbal commitment to their plan.

[snip]

“My job is to speak truth to power,” he said.

And the LAT has McConnell's spokesperson claiming the same:

A spokesman for McConnell rejected assertions that he had changed his position or been used for political purposes by the White House. "The White House did not play any part in rejecting that bill," said Ross Feinstein, a McConnell spokesman. McConnell "made his own decisions. He was clear all along on what he needed in the bill."

In handling those negotiations, McConnell was thrust into a delicate position. By tradition, the nation's top intelligence official is supposed to be insulated from political pressure or from debates over policy. But at the same time, the director is appointed by the president and serves as his top intelligence aide.

"He is the president's senior intelligence advisor, not Congress' senior intelligence advisor," said Mark Lowenthal, a former top CIA official and intelligence historian. But, he added, "I don't think McConnell would ever allow himself to be put in the position of doing the bidding of the White House. It's just not who the guy is."

Both stories contradict the stories TPMM and others were getting from during the negotiations.

Given the contradiction, I couldn't help but remember the reports from negotiations on Bush's recent Executive Order on torture (including one from Mark Mazzetti, the author of today's NYT piece).

We Can't Wait for Bipartisan Solutions

by DHinMI

"We need a consensus."

This is what Joe Biden said a little while ago, when asked by Keith Olberman if he would appoint a Republican to head up the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security.  I don’t have the exact language, but he seemed to imply that nothing would work unless it had significant support from Republicans.

I was floored.

If there is anything that has been apparent since the Democratic takeover of Congress, it’s that many and probably most of the current Republican members of Congress will NEVER work with Democrats for the good of the country.  Since the rise of Newt Gingrich, the majority of Republicans in Congress have demonstrated that they don’t care about the good of the country.  Grover Norquist is inadvertently one of the most honest of conservatives, and when he referred to bipartisanship as date rape, he wasn’t revealing just his own personal view, he was describing the mindset of much of the Republican Congressional caucus and it’s allies in think tanks, among campaign hacks and activists, and in a sizeable chunk of its electoral base. 

It’s a realization many of us had come to long ago.  It’s one of the reasons many of us ended up on progressive blogs, the knowledge that George W Bush, his allies in Congress and the people who push them in to power will use unscrupulous means to attain, maintain and exercise power. They know they have to conceal their unscrupulousness from the public. While the Republican party has veered farther and farther to the right, the American people haven’t really budged.  In fact, on individual issues, the American public is more liberal today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and far more liberal than it was when Lyndon Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, which provided the mandate to enact our major civil rights legislation and the most major extension of the social welfare state since the New Deal and World War II.  Republicans involved in organizing and running elections and selling their policy positions to the press and the talking heads know that the American public is far to their left.  But they conceal their radicalism through clever marketing scams like Frank Luntz’ Contract on America and the pabulum of "compassionate conservatism."